Photos Suggest Shared Shadiness

Almost 2,500 years ago Greek fabulist Aesop sagely advised, “A man is known by the company he keeps”.  A modern analogy is seen in whom one chooses to break bread with.  This concept particularly applies to the slippery Clintons, and the now disgraced movie mogul they chose to dine with on December 13, 2016.  That Hollywood bigwig is today’s accused serial rapist Harvey Weinstein.  According to photographs—mysteriously only recently uncovered by Britain’s Daily Mail, not the mainstream media—Hillary is seated between two men accused of sexual assault; the other being her husband Bill.  Ah, the “hiddenness” of such open secrets—and the curious concealment of related pictures.

Historically, Hillary knew about Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” in the 1990s.  Another Clintonian open secret: long denied until the irrefutable DNA on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress.  Likewise, in her decades-long friendship with Weinstein, is it possible that she didn’t know when everyone in Hollywood seemed to?  At the exclusive East Harlem eatery called Rao’s—mere weeks after her failed presidential campaign—Hillary is fraternizing with such a man?  Given her stinging political defeat one would reasonably infer she would surround herself with trusted intimates.  That means either she didn’t know or she didn't care.  Either way, what would Aesop say about her character, or theirs?

 

The suppression of questionable photos involving prominent Democrats is nothing new.  Another telling example is an obscure image taken at a weekly Congressional Black Caucus lunch back in 2005.  A single frame shot by Askia Muhammad and hidden by him for 13 years.  The main subjects were then freshman senator Barack Obama and the minister Louis Farrakhan: the highly controversial anti-Semitic, anti-white and anti-gay leader of the Nation of Islam.  (For context, per the New York Times, Mr. Farrakhan described Adolf Hitler as “a very great man” in 1984.)  If exposed then, what would the electorate have thought of photographic proof of connection between both men?

In any case, here’s what Mr. Muhammad told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “I swore myself to secrecy. If the picture was exposed, it could still be a deal breaker for Obama [becoming president]. … I did not want to be the instrument of his downfall.”  His candid response likely explains why Hillary’s Weinstein photographs also took so long to surface.  Using Aesop's standard, these images depict associations with dubious characters.  Why hide these photos for years unless they symbolize a deeper reality of collective corruption?

Lying Left's Legacy Lifting

“...[T]ruth will come to light; murder [read: political malfeasance] cannot be hid long...at the length truth will out.” – William Shakespeare, “The Merchant of Venice” (1596)

For over a year now the false narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election has loomed large on the political landscape: a petulant fury from crybaby Democrats who populate the MSM, the legislative minority, and the deep state within government. Ironically, these so-called Democrats no longer respect the democratic process because their “inevitable” candidate didn't win. For them, this defeat is particularly stinging. What else explains the Obama/Clinton party of progressives/socialists who pulled every dirty trick—and still lost?

What will today's breed of Democrats likely be remembered for? Certainly, their constant, unsubstantiated smears of President Trump (and the GOP, in general). And an utter lack of constructive ideas, viable policies and trustworthy words. Besides being anti-Trump what do these polarizing grandstanders stand for—besides doing or saying anything to remain in office?

Perhaps for the first time during the disastrous Obama years, these liberal “servants of the people” habitually make public pronouncements completely divorced from reality. In fact, so incensed by Mr. Obama's dubious claims, who can forget Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelling “You lie” during the former president's healthcare speech to a joint session of Congress in 2009?

Mr. Wilson quickly apologized for his lack of civility. But in our topsy turvy culture, then, the person demonized was only this truth-telling congressman! Two years later “CNSNews.com” reported the facts:

“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday [August 9, 2011] that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law.”

Migrant and seasonal workers are typically foreigners. And these subsidized clinics routinely do not ask for or collect data regarding a patient's citizenship status. So, as light dispels shadow, the truth emerged eventually. Unfortunately, a forgiving electorate did not hold President Obama accountable for his utter lack of veracity at the ballot box (as it likely did for Hillary Clinton in 2016).

Speaking of Barack's whoppers, related to Russian interference, he proclaimed during a Rose Garden press conference on October 18, 2016:

“‘There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections …. There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.’”

Because the liberal establishment was so confident of Hillary's victory, they did not want to cast doubt on the expected outcome of the 2016 election. When they lost their only option was to tar the winner with falsehoods. Yet, where is the actual evidence of political collaboration with the Soviets? It's only found in the Democratic Party. For example, who can forget President Obama's hot mic disclosure to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” to negotiate on missile defense after the November 2012 election? Furthermore, how is the fake Russian dossier on Donald Trump—paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign—not blatant collusion? Likewise, what about the infamous Uranium One deal? The Clinton Foundation accepted $145 million while Russia gained control of 20 percent of domestic U.S. uranium production! (Is that not collusion that rises to the level of treason?) These many instances range from the serious to the silly. More recently, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was caught on audio tape trying to obtain nonexistent “naked” photos of Trump from Vladmir Kyzetsov and Alexei Stolyarov. He thought they were highly placed Russian officials, but they were just comedians spoofing him! For their deplorable track record, why should anyone believe anything any prominent Democrat politician says?

As intangible as a shadow, the Trump collusion fog is slowly dissipating. Indeed, Trump's election remains an important turning point in our political discourse. As light dispels darkness, the People have liberated themselves from their self-imposed progressive stupor. Besides restoration of the American Dream, hopefully, the Trump era will be remembered for demarcation. Only one party advocates honesty, fidelity to law, citizen's rights and American exceptionalism. The other offers only continued pot-stirring chaos via their bold-faced lies resulting in further anarchy and lawlessness. In the meantime, their untruthful rhetoric will not stick to the trash-talking “Teflon” Don. Democrats' spurious claims of conspiracy are only true regarding themselves.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Bushes Polarize Like Progressives

Given the unanticipated election of Donald Trump, it's difficult to determine which establishment faction is more perturbed, liberals or old guard Republicans. Despite clear and unambiguous Clintonian corruption, neither “side” seems capable of respecting the democratic process when one of their own is not in the winner's circle. Thus, to them, the people's will—and, by extension, the fate of the nation be damned!

The childish cattiness that has resulted is expected of Democrats. They're myopically focused on reelection, but little else. What political party wouldn't be furious over losing over 1,000 officeholders during the Obama era—including, stingingly, the presidency? Yet, what's unseemly is for GOP stalwarts to publicly chastise their party's current standard bearer. For example, George W. Bush said, “This guy [Trump] doesn't know what it means to be president.” How's that not calling the kettle black? What happened to the generations-long tradition of remaining silent regarding one's presidential successors? Likewise, what of Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment never to speak ill of another Republican? So much for honoring “the rules” of political discourse.

In truth, if Mr. Bush was going to “go there” he's waited eight years too long—and picked the wrong target. Recall, as a go-to excuse for Barack Obama's own multitude of failures, he conveniently “blamed Bush”. Specifically, Mr. Obama called his predecessor's deficit spending “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible”. For that demonization, the younger Bush has reason to be incensed. Not at Trump, but at the Democrat's hypocrisy for running through almost twice as much as he: 4.9 versus 9.3 trillion. If that's not egregious enough, what of Mr. Obama's cash payment of 1.7 billion to the pro-terrorist Iranian regime? Why was “W” as silent as a church mouse when actual presidential mismanagement—and malfeasance—transpired? (Is his anti-Trump fervor sour grapes for thwarting his brother Jeb's presidential prospects?)

As was widely reported, shockingly 41 voted for Hillary Clinton, and 43 voted for “none of the above.” How out of sync can two former Republican presidents be? In a recent speech “W” obtusely said, “At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together.” With their polarizing rhetoric on full display, isn't the Bush clan doing precisely that? Furthermore, doesn't their brand of divisiveness have the same negative impact as that of any progressive?

Naturally, the Bushes are free to squawk, and uselessly wring their hands. So, too, is the rest of the unsettled GOP establishment. However, piling on is a fool's errand that only makes matters worse. After all, thanks to the hard left MSM, untruths and distortions about Trump already run rampant. And unlike either Bush, at least President Trump has the courage to fight back against these false narratives rather than “dignifyingly” taking them. (Defeated Mitt Romney epitomized that failed philosophy.)

That both former presidents surnamed Bush would now speak out against a sitting president shows disdain for established decorum, and the voice of the electorate. With the nation coming apart at the seams during the disastrous Obama years, they collectively made not a peep. Apparently, for these beltway blue bloods, unjustly trashing Trump is a favorite pastime. That the Bushes partake shows their loyalties truly lie with the insulated political class (regardless of party affiliation) rather than with the voters. Moreover, as their sentiments are indistinguishable from that of Democrats, party labels are rendered meaningless. Herein, to any clear-thinking person is proof of the necessity of electing Donald Trump. The political pendulum has indeed swung far away from dynastic families—and, in 2016, an entitled insider. That maddening reality—as much as the brash billionaire himself—is deliciously driving the D.C. ruling elite daffy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Twisting D'Sousa's “Big Lie”

From his book review of Dinesh D'Sousa's latest, Washington Times columnist Michael Taube gets it wrong. Mr. Taube's article title incorrectly proclaims, “Fascists to the right, fascists to the left”. Yet, the whole point of “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left” is to clarify that Nazism/Fascism/Socialism are political movements exclusive to the left. In other words, despite this scribe's misleading assertion, they are never of the political right. Want an example of a “radical” right-wing group? Try the Tea Party!

To be fair, Mr. Taube touches on Ronald Reagan's famous “60 Minutes” quote from 1975, “If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.” But what else did “The Gipper” say that this reviewer vitally left out? To continue with Mr. Reagan's now prophetic words:

“And what is fascism? Fascism is private ownership—private enterprise—but total government control and regulation. Well isn't this the liberal philosophy? The conservative, so-called, is the one that says less government—get off my back, get out of my pocket—and let me have more control of my own destiny.”

Put simply, these three sister philosophies of big government cannot be of the right. On a related matter, President Trump cannot be a fascist or a socialist because he is a deregulating, unapologetic capitalist! Likewise, he can't be a Nazi either because he is, for example, staunchly pro-Israel. Indeed, Mr. Trump’s “America First” policies of economic self-determination—and his outspoken refutation of liberals and the MSM—define him as a true patriot in our tumultuous modern age.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Gifting Nukes to North Korea, Iran

In nature, typical human beings are smart enough not to feed the gators. Wisely, neither do they tangle with grizzly bears. Historically, why then do Democratic presidents consistently subsidize, and embolden, America's geopolitical foes? A prime example is Bill Clinton's public capitulation to one back on October 18, 1994:

“This agreement [$4 billion in U.S. energy aid] will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective—an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.”

In light of the present reality there: whoops!

Recall that this poll-obsessed president—same as the last occupant of the White House—mastered the promotion of superficial political narratives. Stated plainly, the optics of how something can be politically spun: without any thought to how dire something actually is, or may turn out in the long term to be. Facilitated by Bill Clinton, what greater example could there be than North Korea? Today, a totalitarian regime has him to thank for reportedly passing the nuclear threshold.

Beyond any consideration, Democrats are always about preserving their party's influence via the next election cycle. Back then, in the middle of his first term, Mr. Clinton badly needed a talking point. An illusory “victory” he could point to to stave off what shortly became 1994's Republican Revolution: a GOP takeover of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Yet, at the time, Clinton's machinations were even acknowledged by the partisan New York Times:

“The accord struck in Geneva gave the President a chance to proclaim a major foreign policy success just weeks before the midterm election. But Asian diplomats pointed out today that it also placed the United States in the odd position of bolstering the political capital of a man it has regularly denounced as a terrorist, a supplier of missile technology to Iran and a dictator: Kim Jong Il.” 

Ah, the difference 23 years makes.

In retrospect, Kim Jong Il (Kim Jong-un's father) had Bill Clinton's yellow cake and ate it too. Naturally, by cake, I refer to de facto U.S. financing of North Korea fledgling nuclear weapons program. Over the decade that U.S. billions flowed to Pyongyang, isn't it likely that some of that American cash was misappropriated to acquire uranium, and develop military technology like ballistic missiles?

As the Clinton administration had declared Kim Jong-un's father a terrorist, why would they foolhardily enter into an agreement with someone obviously so dangerous and untrustworthy? Remember, the former Arkansas governor had no international experience. His shortsighted political “fix” garnered some momentary positive press, but achieved nothing meaningful. In the House of Representatives, a 54-seat swing put Republicans in charge for the first time since 1952. Likewise, an 8-seat gain gave the GOP control of the Senate held previously in 1986. As is so typical in modern-day politics, problems escalate by being kicked farther down the road to someone else, and an uncertain future.

Then, as now, Republicans hold the reins of power in Congress and the White House. Given the contentious political landscape—and disturbing international developments—a mixed blessing, at best. What it really means is that the GOP—and Donald Trump, in particular—is left holding the bag for decades of liberals' reckless policy decisions. Idiotic choices exemplified by thoughtless neophytes like Bill Clinton in the 90s, and repeated by Barack Obama during his administration. Besides Obama's coddling North Korea for eight years, what of his adding almost 10 trillion added to the nation's debt; ISIS's full flowering under his watch; the healthcare debacle that is Obamacare; and the yet-to-be realized Damocles sword that's his disastrous Iranian “deal”. Wrongly maligned by the beltway establishments of both parties, how “lucky” for Mr. Trump to also potentially contend with an upcoming nuclear threat from Middle Eastern Ayatollahs!

In essence, isn't Bill Clinton's North Korea misadventure equivalent to Barack Obama's and Iran? Once again, the pretext of a “Democratic victory lap” on the international stage was the unhinged rationale for misappropriating American resources to bankroll the largest state-sponsor of terrorism: $33.6 billion! As the clock rapidly expires, does any clear thinking person truly believe that Iranian leaders are not actively following North Korea's lead?

To that end, in the modern era, Democratic presidents tend to drag America into armed conflicts (or as close to them as possible). As examples, there's no doubt that Democrats were in the White House during the three big “defensive” wars of the 20th century: the two World Wars and Korea. Furthermore, Democrats started and escalating the widely unpopular Vietnam War. In Asia, so much American blood and treasure needless lost! If history repeats itself there, his Democratic predecessors, not Trump, overwhelmingly bear responsibility.

In the interest of full disclosure, there are two notable exceptions where contemporary Republican presidents have initiated war. First, was Bill Clinton's minor inheritance of the military intervention in Somalia ordered by George H. W. Bush. Second, and of far greater significance, was Mr. Obama's inheritance of the Iraq War from George W. Bush. Yet, an important mitigating factor shows, once again, that a Democrat's hands are central to triggering that American tragedy. This time it was Bill Clinton's chose not to act against Osama bin Laden—the mastermind of the 9/11 attack—that enabled the deadly domino effect. As Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) articulated in the GOP debate on February 13, 2016:

“The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn’t kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him [four chances per the 9/11 report].”

For all of the above, if not for failed Democratic presidents would Mr. Trump be in such an unenviable position overseas? Thus, his fiery rhetoric of “fire and fury” is singularly appropriate under these circumstances. For insight into the president's mentality, his 1990 book, “Trump: Surviving at the Top,” states:

“Americans have become so accustomed to professional politicians that when they are faced with a strong personality—a man or woman of action—they are afraid, or at least very wary … When we fear leaders of great passion, though, we often forget that the other side fears them, too.”

Such a mind-set undoubtedly scares anti-Trump pundits populating the MSM media, but it sends an unmistakable, Reaganesque message of strength and resolve. Trouble-making North Korea—and other anti-American despots—would be wise to listen. For real change has arrived: this time a pro-America grizzly is being provoked. Regardless of the outcome, that will make all of the difference. No longer does a wishy-washy Clinton, or a progressive apologist, occupy the Oval Office.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Washington Swamp's Russian Fever

Supposed “Russian interference” is the Democrats' morning-after poison pill for the results of the 2016 election. From November 9 onward, this narrative has been intended to undermine Donald Trump, and hamstring his “Make America Great Again” agenda.

Unfairly, the liberal MSM has rabidly embraced wild-eyed supposition based upon unsubstantiated innuendo. Its underlying purpose is a face-saving measure to distract from the complete repudiation of progressives' eight years of failures. This effort also had the immediate benefit of painting responsibility-phobic Hillary—and her Democratic fellows—as victims of an “international conspiracy”.

Given this contrivance, one is reminded of Mrs. Clinton's outrageous January 27, 1988 claim of a “vast right wing conspiracy” against her presidential hubby for his adulterous affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Then as now, a pattern of pure fiction spun as a distraction for Clintonian misdeeds. Specifically, during the last election cycle, what of Hillary's less than truthful answers; her highly suspect decisions related to her Server-gate scandal; her influence-peddling Charity-gate dealings; her obvious deficiencies as a politician?

Unfortunately, the entrenched Washington establishment has used this political smoke and mirrors as a feeble excuse not to pass meaningful legislation. That means both parties. On one hand, Democrats take up wasted space in Congress, filling the air with anti-Trump rhetoric. On the other, Republicans sit on their hands, ignoring their languishing seven-year pledge to repeal and replace ObamaCare. These dysfunctions epitomize “the swamp” President Trump is working mightily to drain.

Ah, the idle political class—typified by poster boy Paul Ryan (R-WI). He stated on May 17, 2017, “It is obvious there are some people out there who want to harm the president.’’ As he acknowledges this is the case, why not put a stop to months of nebulous, fruitless inquiries? With no evidence—and no end in sight—why do GOP enablers facilitate a huge distraction from the successful agenda the president ran on? Is it political cover for their own fecklessness?

For historical context, recall Mr. Ryan's acceptance speech as House Speaker on October 29, 2015:

“But let’s be frank: The House is broken. We are not solving problems. We are adding to them. And I am not interested in laying blame. We are not settling scores. We are wiping the slate clean. Neither the members nor the people are satisfied with how things are going. We need to make some changes, starting with how the House does business.”

Doe-eyed Ryan promised a “fresh start,” but delivered more gridlock. Conciliatory lip service notwithstanding, what of his results? Likewise, what of his Senate counterpart Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)? Both seem to have an innate aversion to taking the political heat leadership requires. In large part, this ire comes from collectively intractable Democrats. Yet, where is their consensus building within GOP's ranks? Given the rejection of the status quo articulated by the last election cycle—why hasn't either man forcefully defended the president? Why haven't they told Congressional Democrats to stow their obstructionist carping? As a touchstone, why wasn't the ObamaCare repeal bill ready for President Trump's signature on day one: January 20, 2017?

After all, the Republicans ran against the healthcare debacle for years. Precisely as establishment Democrats, Congressional RINOs played politics to gain legislative majorities. Now, after six months of a new administration and GOP dominance in Congress, what do Ryan and McConnell have to show for it? The American Healthcare Act (AHCA) barely passed the House, 217-213 and may not pass in the Senate. How's that for snatching failure out of the jaws of victory? Indeed, if McConnell's minions don't coalesce behind the president's policies forthwith, they will be “swamped” by Democrats eager to replace them in 2018.

It's not the Trump campaign that needs attention here, but Hillary Clinton herself. Specifically, as then Secretary of State, she rubber stamped the Uranium One “deal” in which 20% of U.S. domestic uranium production was ceded to Kremlin control. In exchange, the now defunct Clinton Foundation received four donations totaling $2.35 million. A real Soviet windfall! If that's not blatant enough, Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with government ties promoting Uranium One stock. So, who has Russian ties and likely colluded? That's clear to anyone not subscribing to the Democrats' dishonest “red scare”. A politically expedient bogeyman spawned by do-nothing Republicans and corrupt liberals' wishful thinking.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Trumpmageddon: Swampy Democrats' Waterloo

“The Liberals have not had a new idea since the last Ice Age; and nowadays the mark of a true Liberal is not so much his adherence to a coherent agenda but the intensity of his angers and the alacrity with which he urges impeachment proceedings against a conservative president at the least provocation.” – “The American Spectator” editor in chief, author and columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., “The Conservative Crack-Up” (1992)

The Washington establishment is glacial in its permanence; defined by its “swampy” unwillingness to conform to the will of freedom-loving people who elected a true outsider to the presidency in 2016. Given scribe Tyrrell's above insight, who's not today instantly reminded of Democrats' rabidly anti-Trump rhetoric (abetted by entrenched, weak-kneed Republicans)? For context, his prophetic genius was actually penned over 25 years ago. It refers to liberals' unjustifiable angst over another political upstart: Ronald Reagan. Besides that commonality, Donald Trump has another Reaganesque connection: he appropriated his predecessor's patriotic 1980s slogan, “Make America Great Again”.

In order to “M.A.G.A.”, as “The Great Communicator,” Reagan utilized Oval Office addresses to speak directly to the American people. Thus, he circumvented the cacophony of Washington naysayers, and the largely unfavorable spin of the legacy press. For that same purpose, President Trump uses Twitter, the 21^st century equivalent. For his part, Reagan was constantly belittled and attacked for opposing liberalism. Isn't the left's farcical charge of Trump campaign collusion with Russia the same thing? To that end, on June 15^th, The Donald tweeted:

“You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history—led by some very bad and conflicted people!#MAGA”

Trump's “bad people” have reason for concern: their candidates are 0-5 in special congressional elections. If political hell is an “Ice Age”—a Siberian wasteland for the sidelined—this is squarely where Democrats find themselves. President Trump, as Reagan before him, is leading America despite the raging opposition. Hence, liberals' overblown response, a new political malady known as “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. But, what else are backbenchers bereft of constructive ideas to do? They have reconstituted Barack Obama's buck-passing “blame Bush” strategy: a distraction from their own obvious policy failures.

Combine progressives' toxic track records with their equally hateful rhetoric—as epitomized by the last administration. That, in turn, has inspired their alienated, self-radicalized followers to perpetrate violent and murderous acts. As a case and point, why else would a Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, attempt to massacre a group of Republican lawmakers at a Virginia baseball park on June 14^th? To that end, Tyrrell's ironically titled Washington Times column of June 21^st, “Just another well-intentioned progressive,” addresses that disturbing incident. Once again, his spot-on assessment is both startlingly predictive and illuminating:

Actually, that Hodgkinson is pretty much a standard-issue progressive ought to give everyone the creeps. … [T]he “angry left”.... has been on a steady evolution toward homicide like what Hodgkinson undertook last week for years, and there are a lot more Hodgkinsons out there than we care to contemplate.”

Well, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. would know, wouldn't he?

What he wrote in 1992 is a snapshot of today's vanquished progressives: all bluster and bravado, signifying nothing. Lacking a platform, their divisive party has rotted to its core. Unless one considers the superficiality of identity politics, or grievance culture, a cohesive agenda. Is it any wonder they're so grossly out of touch in the Trump Age? Clearly, “Resistance” is a slipshod political strategy; as unlikely to bear fruit as their much beloved impeachment fantasy. Besides gridlock and dysfunction, what do they offer? Once again, Tyrrell's prescient words concerning liberals' shenanigans are as true now as they were during Reagan's era:

“They gave themselves over to innuendo, misrepresentation, and slander; and the conservatives sat quietly by with the American people witnessing an increasingly lurid spectacle.”

How is that not a blueprint for progressives' anti-Trump tactics of 2017? Democrats driven around the bend by those over the hill: Hillary Clinton, 69; Bernie Sanders, 75; Elizabeth Warren, 68; Nancy Pelosi, 77 (and for good measure, Joe Biden, 74). For the “iced” left—led astray by political dinosaurs—Tyrrell brilliantly proves the past truly is prologue.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Illegals: Don't Mess With Texas

Obviously, green card holders aren't American citizens. Why then did Rosa Ortega of Grand Prairie, TX, 37, assume she was entitled to vote? Further, why did she foolishly sign government forms attesting to U.S. citizenship? Unfortunately for this Mexican-born, Texas-raised mother of four, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Perhaps taking a page from D.C.'s “new sheriff” President Trump, the Lone Star State's penalty—imposed by Ms. Ortega's jury—shows startling backbone: eight years in the pokey and a $5000 fine for voter fraud. Beyond her stiff sentence, she also defies the expectations of a political stereotype: reportedly she voted for pro-law enforcement Republicans. There's some delicious irony in that.

Given this nightmarish scenario, Ms. Ortega's understandable reaction is very human one:

“Why me, God? Eight years for signing a piece of paper wrong. I didn’t know what I was doing. I don’t have any criminal record. Why am I the example?”

Notice how her words denote false victimization. An almost lawyerly evasiveness to diminish her illegal acts, perpetrated since 2004. Specifically, Ortega had voted in five elections in Dallas County before her voter registration was nixed in April of 2015. Per Fox 4 News, her identity was scrutinized after she tried to register to vote twice in Tarrant County. Those applications were both denied.

Doesn't this pattern of wrongdoing indicate willful ignorance? Hers is a total denial of personal responsibility for her choices—and their unexpected consequences. Indeed, Ortega is swiftly discovering a new paradigm like so many others in the shadows. Unlike Obama's lackadaisical regime, in Trump's America laws and legal status matter—again.

Despite Ms. Ortega's sympathetic protestations, voting by non-citizens is not a meaningless crime. Its stealthy practice is actually an insidious assault upon our country's soul. After all, what's more fundamental than diluting the all-important voice of We the People?

In most cases (not Ortega's: she's a permanent resident), this “thievery” is perpetrated by an unknown segment of an invisible, squatting underclass of foreign invaders with no legal standing. Perhaps assisting matters, per Pew Center statistics, voter inaccuracies are rampant. They include: dead people still registered and/or voting, the same person registered in two or more locations, and largely faulty or completely invalid registrations. How many of those permit illegals to vote?

Moreover, do they yet exert enough influence to tilt an election? What of a 2015 survey that indicates that 13% of illegals confess to fraudulent voting in California with its treasure trove of 55 electoral votes? Election results there show that since 1992, to the present, the nation's most populist state has voted solidly Democrat. Is it just coincidence that the outspokenly pro-illegal Democratic Party dominates there? These are the pressing, unanswered political questions of our age.

Elections aside, it's beyond naive to believe that the bushels of bad apples among the undocumented don't have a harmful impact upon our society. What of the tragic murders of Kate Steinle and Jamiel “Jas” Shaw II at the violent hands of illegals? Their premature deaths would not have occurred otherwise. More recently, neither would the bathroom gang rape of a 14-year old ninth-grader by two older illegal teens in Maryland's Rockville High School in March of 2017. Based on 2014 government data, the Pew Research Center estimates approximately 3.9 million kindergarten through 12th-grade students in U.S. schools—or 7.3% of the total—are children of illegal aliens. At minimum, how is that not a cultural disruption and a logistical nightmare? Likewise, how is a suspected 11 (or is it 30?) million strangers freely adrift within our borders—with no incentive to assimilate—never anything to be concerned about?

Insulated from danger, the powerful and moneyed families of Washington's elected officials are safe. As the establishment of both parties remains unaffected, their nonchalance on these related issues is easy to understand. For decades, why not act like metaphorical ostriches with heads buried in sand while an abetting MSM happily plays along? Yet, ignoring these glaring problems doesn't change their reality. For context, contrast that high school child's brutal sexual assault—or the killing of innocents—to Rosa Ortega temporary loss of freedom (and potential deportation). To borrow the catchphrase from the 1970's TV show “Baretta”: “Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.” Her unlucky fate broadcasts an important social and political message: lawbreakers, big and small, beware.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

2016: An Anti-Women Year?

“But scientists? Record-breaking athletes? Leaders? Does. Not. Compute. Still! In 2016. From the lab to the Olympic podium to the Oval Office, America still has a problem with women when they’re good at the things men have long reserved for themselves.” – Petula Dvorak, “feminist” Washington Post columnist

As Crooked Hillary did not win the presidency, scribbler Dvorak has yet another political ax to grind. What else explains her boneheaded assessment that 2016 is somehow globally anti-woman? Like liar Hillary, apparently Ms. Dvorak has an aversion to truth-telling—and modern-day reality. Girl power is everywhere! What of the current resident at 10 Downing Street? British Prime Minister Theresa May doesn't count as a leader? At home, how about Air Force general Lori Robinson: the highest ranking female in U.S. history—and the first women as a combat commander? Further, three women are on the Supreme Court. Isn't it hypocritical for Ms. Dvorak to accuse others of diminishing the contributions of women—when she completely ignores them?

In sport, why has she forgotten tennis pro Serena Williams? This year, Ms. Williams tied Steffi Graf's historic open era record of 22 major championships. Likewise, how about another American phenom, Simone Biles? As the winner of four gold metals, she's considered the “greatest gymnast of all time”. This breakout star of a team of women has established an Olympic legacy. Speaking of the Rio Games, U.S. women were the big winners: receiving 61 metals (to the men's 55), 27 of them golds. In 2016, if these don't count as record-breaking athletes to addled Dvorak, who does?

While it's true that women have not been so publicly acknowledged in scientific circles, even that unfortunate dynamic has been commemorated in today's highly rated movie, “Hidden Figures”. Given Ms. Dvorak's jaded '60s style mind-set, it's no surprise she doesn't pay attention to pro-woman box office trends. What else explains her failure to mention current number one “Rogue One”? That film features a brave, tough and capable female lead, Jyn Erso (played by actress Felicity Jones).

Indeed, 21^st century America is one of the most accepting cultures on earth. Therefore, griping liberals—promoting a false anti-woman narrative—are actually grievance-holding dinosaurs of a bygone era. At present, tolerance is the overwhelming rule rather than the exception. As flawed and out of touch, such MSM misperceivers like Petula Dvorak should be pitied. Rightfully marginalized by current events—and a society that has evolved well beyond her. In truth, the “problem with women” is her own phantom menace. A sour grapes bogeyman of an ideologue's fevered imagination.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976  

Ryan Lochte and Obama: When Lies Are Golden

“We do not pay ransom [total: 1.7 billion]. We didn’t here and we won’t in the future.” – President Barack Obama

Reporter: “In basic English, you’re now saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash [first installment] until the prisoners [hostages] were released, correct?” “That's correct.” – State Department spokesman John Kirby

Brazilian authorities should have seen the same wide-eyed dollar signs as the Iranians regarding three previously held American Olympian swimmers. Rather than simply releasing two and charging a third (who paid a $10,800 fine for vandalizing a gas station bathroom), imagine how much taxpayer dough they could of wheedled out of Mr. Obama?

Like Barack Obama, lying Olympian Ryan Lochte loves the spotlight, doesn't differentiate reality from fiction, and is completely incapable of shame. In these dysfunctional aspects of personality (minus Lochte's attention-grabbing formerly dyed blue locks), he's in good company with our president. Both exude a false sense of superiority, feel an elitist's entitlement to say or do whatever they want—and are absolutely impervious to truth. Will this drunkard face no consequences as Mr. Obama? Only time will tell.

At 32, Ryan Lochte was supposed to be the adult of the cadre of 20-something drunken party boys that included Jack Conger, Gunnar Bentz and Jimmy Feigen. During an early morning pit stop, a locked bathroom was kicked in, walls were soiled and a mirror was broken. Lochte spun a gun welding security guard into a tall tale about a thieving plain clothes police officer who put a gun muzzle to his empty head, cocking the trigger. This was the story he later peddled to the American press, resulting in an international incident.

Already under the towering shadow of Michael Phelps—this Other Guy with six gold metals (12 overall)—will be forever known as a crying wolf drunken goofball. Unfortunately, for all of Mr. Lochte's fame, the propagandist MSM is not in the tank for him as they are for the fibber-in-chief. Indeed, the president has lied repeatedly, and gotten away with whoppers such as: “If you like your heathcare plan you can keep it. Period.”; “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”; “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism—it is an important part of promoting peace.” Buoyed inexplicably around 50%, Mr. Obama's approval rating is largely unaffected by his track record of bold faced lies. Yet, what sane American corporation will want Ryan Lochte's smarmy endorsement?

This oblivious Olympian—same as his high-life partying counterpart in the White House—is the poster child for the Ugly American in 2016. Fortunately, the professional expiration date of this matching set of lying, irresponsible pajama boys is at hand. Thus, an exasperated nation can gratefully put them both out to pasture. Related to the former golden boy—this disgraced symbol of boorish American excess—Lochte shouldn't let the bathroom door hit his backside on his way to Las Vegas where he can freely indulge in hidden, future adolescent antics.

In the finally analysis, these careless people prove that fancy metals without integrity (same as Obama's presidency) are empty achievements, treasured fool's gold.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Anarchist “King” George's Powder Keg

“Democrats know: Say the lie loud enough—and long enough—and it filters down as truth to the low-information voter.” — The author, from “Hillary's Presidential Run: No Joke?”

In the rainbow flag of diversity, the only color that matters to progressives is green—and specifically what chaos all those spent dollars foment. This includes globalist billionaire George Soros. On the international stage, he's anti-Israel, pro-radical Islam and pro-refugee crisis plaguing Europe. Apparently, he sees business opportunities in disrupting Western societies the world over. This includes America.

Ah, Democrats and their endlessly hacked files. Of 2,500 recently stolen from kingmaker Soros' non-profit—his Orwellian sounding Foundation to Promote Open Society (OSF)—one such obtained gem shows a $7.7 million investment in surrogates who pushed for the Senate’s 2013 comprehensive reform bill (an illegal alien amnesty measure passed in the upper chamber by 68-32, but ignored by the House). At the time, the failed effort was promoted in the press as “groundbreaking” (because it was introduced by the bi-partisan “Gang of Eight.”) Yet, Mr. Soros valued the optics for societal manipulation: even a whiff of citizenship acts as a magnet to attract more unwelcome squatters across our lawless, porous borders. A financial drain and criminality always accompanies this underclass of invaders. This dynamic well serves billionaire Soros' troublemaking endgame.

Beyond the beltway bubble, Mr. Soros finances the domestic terrorism of the anti-life Black Lives Matter. For his 33 million for “social justice,” malcontents received national media coverage for the jarring images of an aggrieved, violent mob burning Ferguson, MO to the ground. This circumstance created the false narrative that America is still a racist society (circa a 1963 time warp). How is this possible in 2016 with a black man cooling his heels in the White House for almost two presidential terms? The obvious truth of tolerance belies Mr. Soros' big lie. We have never needed his or Mr. Obama's rabble-rousing “fundamental transformation of America.”

Because 93% of journalists self-describe as Democrats, Mr. Soros enjoys a built-in philosophically sympathetic press. Thus, the vital issues of our age are relegated to the persistent buzz of background noise. The low-information voter absorbs propagandist MSM that spins, diminishes or virtually ignores: widespread, ongoing Obama Administration scandals and corruption; treasonous, lying Democrats like Hillary Clinton; an escalating 19.4T national debt; open borders, global Islamist jihad and terrorism; 93 million unemployed Americans; inner city black-on-black homicide, poverty and despair. By any objective standard, given the disgraceful state of the country, how else can despicable Hillary Clinton lead in the polls?

Mr. Soros' vast fortune buys him influence to shape both our cultural conversation and our political dialogue. His is the power of false perception over reality. He socially engineers by promoting trivia that distracts from the important issues of our day. Hence, the nation's myopic focus on LGBT issues like transgender bathrooms. Per his tax returns, he donated approximately 2.7 million to OSF for such minutia. Why else would a billionaire foreigner concern himself with who uses American toilets?

In 1776, when the American rebels fought the British for independence, bet your bottom dollar that unisex bathrooms for people they would have known as hermaphrodites were not on their list of grievances. Can one imagine the hearty laughter already crazy King George III would have had at such a colonial request? He wouldn't have bothered dispatching his military, the red coats. Instead, he would have ordered the men in white from madhouses to promptly round them up.

The Founding Father's contended with a mad British king and we have our 21^st century counterpart, a foreign de facto despot also named George (Soros). They would have considered the range of his positions patently insane, and would not have tolerated his destructive interference. Neither should we believe Mr. Soros' anti-American agenda or elect his Democratic puppets like greenback-obsessed Hillary Clinton.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Hillary's Hypocrisy Henchmen

“If it were not for double standards, liberals [politicians and the MSM] would have no standards at all.” - WMAL's conservative radio personality Chris Plante

When extreme leftist klansman David Duke announced public support for a Donald Trump presidency, the MSM wrongly smeared the Republican candidate for the endorsement. Honestly, in what sane world is any candidate responsible for any nutcase who chooses to back him? If American culture consistently demonstrates anything, it's that it takes all kinds of people freely making choices for their own reasons. That's democracy.

Yet, this jaded presentation of information was not journalism's objective reporting of facts, but naked partisanship based upon false innuendo. For starters, a racist, anti-suffrage klansman will never populate the party of Abraham Lincoln—Republicans then as now—that's the Democrats' department. Before one jumps to the erroneous conclusion that liberals aren't “that way” anymore, which of today's political parties bases its polarizing narratives on irrelevancies like gender identity? Which party's candidate says: 'elect me because I'm a woman?' Furthermore, which party successfully counted on another superficiality, that of race over the last eight disastrous years?

Even the educated are fooled that the Democrats “atoned” for their disgraceful pro-slavery history with the passage of Lyndon Baines Johnson's “holy grail”: the 1964 Civil Rights bill. However, what is always true of progressives—then with Johnson, now with Clinton—is that things below the surface of their media-spun actions don't line up with truth. At the time, LBJ admitted privately his real agenda:

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!”

Started in the 20^th century and carried forward, what accompanied the good anti-discrimination statutes were invisible economic chains that have tricked generations of minorities into the barest government-supported subsistence in exchange for becoming loyal Democratic voting blocs. This dynamic is better known as the Democrat's poverty plantation. How else does one explain 90% of Afro-Americans supporting Republicans in Lincoln's time, but only approximately 10% more recently?

Minorities are perpetually infantilized; convinced by Democrats via their MSM creature that obtaining a free identity card is a bridge too far to cross. That such a standard applied to anyone of voting age is somehow surreptitiously racist. Yet, as anyone sensible knows, an ID is a basic, modern necessity. How else does one open a bank account, get a job or legally drive a car? As president, only Barack Obama doesn't need one. While he habitually golfs with millionaires—and parties with billionaires—his wholly abandoned Chicago fellows eek out impoverished lives in inner city slums more dangerous than some Middle Eastern war zones. Only the most extraordinary individuals—a select few like Dr. Ben Carson—rise from such humble beginnings to enjoy our now debt-ridden capitalistic system. If Hillary's advocacy of Bernie Sanders' style socialism is the path to mass prosperity, wouldn't brainy Mr. Carson support her?

Speaking of unhinged support for a corrupt liar, we arrive at the funny farm of colorful characters that actually do endorse this Clintonian hydra of American scandal. While the media has ensured nutter David Duke is a household name, the powers-at-be have ignored John Bachtell. (“Jeopardy” champions, does that guy ring a bell for you?) Mr. Bachtell—an outspoken Hillary advocate—is the little known chairman of the Communist Party of the United States.

Think he's just an exception to the rule? Let's try the better known two-faced Seddique Mateen, a vocal Taliban supporter (read: pro-terrorism) and simultaneous lip service apologist for his jihadist, mass murdering son. (The younger Mateen, Omar, slaughtered 49 innocents at the Orlando gay nightclub, Pulse.) Unlike Trump, the “objective” press did not take Hillary Clinton to task for not disavowing Seddique's clapping presence at her Kissimmee rally (ironically featuring a speech about the tragedy). For his part, obviously, the elder Mateen felt quite comfortable in Mrs. Clinton's company. He even told a local TV affiliate: “I was invited by the Democratic Party.”

Naturally, the Clinton camp denied Seddique's claim—much as they habitually deny every unsavory reality related to their candidate. The press has not followed up on the matter. Nor are they ever likely to. Why? For one thing, 93% of journalists self-identify as Democrats. Moreover, as with all contemporary Clinton wrongdoing, one must heavily factor money into the equation (read: Clinton Cash). Thus, the larger answer lies in the fact that as of 2011, 6 conglomerates control 90% of the legacy media. Given all of the kid glove, fawning coverage of Hillary Clinton, what are the odds that virtually all of these corporate behemoths are not contributors to her “charitable foundation” and/or her presidential campaign?

As Charity-gate has already demonstrated, “dead broke” Hillary peddles high level government influence for an ill-gotten 238 million dollar personal fortune. Undoubtedly, the liberal media has met Mrs. Clinton's asking price. Therefore, they have both a philosophical bias and a substantial investment in her presidency. Simply put, the fix is in. In effect, the MSM functions as the propagandist arm of the anti-JFK Democratic Party. All of the above truths are easily obscured, buried under an avalanche of 24-hour MSM spin.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976