Going Cuckoo Hiding Obama's “Gatsby”

“And I hope she'll be a fool—that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.” – Daisy Buchanan, love interest from F. Scott Fitzgerald's literary classic “The Great Gatsby” (1925)

By publishing “Our dishonest president,” “Why Trump lies” and “Trump's Authoritarian Vision,” the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times tries to play their readers for fools. To that end, this series should have been printed on April Fool's Day. After all, they comprise an absurdist anti-Trump hatchet job that actually epitomizes Barack Obama. Some 70 days in (within any new president's honeymoon) did any detractor treat the former president with partisan venom or unjustifiable disdain?

That answer is absolutely not. Back then, everything for the inexperienced sophomoric senator from Illinois was hope and change rainbows and unicorns. After 8 years, his progressive fantasy—a dystopian design to turn America into a big government, European-style socialist state—resulted in nothing good. Contrast that to Trump's rejuvenating vision of “America First”. Hence, it's laughable to claim, “He sees himself as not merely a force for change, but as a wrecking ball.” By definition, that which destroys can't also be that which restores. Utter hogwash! What of Obama's record-shattering debt (9.3 trillion added), ObamaCare's imploding failure (BHO's “Keep your plan” whopper: Politifact's Lie of the Year in 2013), Middle East tumult and the likelihood of a nuclear Iran (funded by Obama's 1.7 billion dollar payout in January of 2016) to name just a few of the last administration's messes. That unmistakable damage has nothing to do with President Trump. Per the facts, exactly who's been a wrecking ball here? The politically schizophrenic press can't find anything good about Mr. Trump—or anything wrong with Mr. Obama. Should such naked bias and baseless propaganda be trusted?

Under Obama for most of a decade, they found nothing amiss as the world burned with perpetual Middle Eastern strife and terrorist insurgency. Simultaneously, America teetered on economic insolvency enflamed by a domestic racial powder keg. Meanwhile, the enigma “in charge” was a F. Scott Fitzgerald style dilettante who led from behind and governed via golfing greens. (Per CBS reporter Mark Knoller, Barack Obama played 333 times over his two terms.) Interestingly, both high living figures changed their names: James Gatz assumed the Jay Gatsby persona while Barry Soetoro became Barack Obama. Yet, the parallels run deeper to equally murky pasts. After all, doesn't Gatsby's bootlegging and shadowy mob associations eerily denote Obama's Indonesian childhood, his controversial birthplace (read: Kenya or Hawaii?) and unclear religious persuasion (read: Christian or Muslim faith?). Furthermore, both men abandoned humble roots for larger-than-life ego-building aims. In pretender Gatsby case, to achieve wealth in order to be worthy of his “golden girl”. Similarly, for Obama, to gain the ultimate standing by playing at being a U.S. president.

Moreover, the two share a common psychology: the same heedless mind-set of the unyielding dreamer. The difference being Gatsby's obsession with the past (“Can't repeat the past?” he cried incredulously. “Why of course you can.”) versus Obama's sole interest in dominating the future:

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” – Candidate Obama on Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008

As president, he clearly enjoyed the office's pomp and circumstance while, like Gatsby, completely ignoring distasteful realities. Specifically, what of his forgotten political hometown of Chicago: the nation's murder capitol for 5 of the 8 years of his presidency? Beyond that, Obama told numerous bald-faced lies and constantly stoked racial tensions to distract from his litany of atrocious mistakes. Even worse, he never took any responsibility whatsoever. Abetted by the MSM—today same as yesteryear—the political opposition is blamed for all of his failures. Thus, isn't Barack Obama the moneyed archetype for a nefarious Gatsby playboy? And speaking of careless people, doesn't designer duds Michelle roughly approximate superficial, shirt-obsessed Daisy Buchanan?

To ground things in a real-life context, Democratic ex-president Bill Clinton reportedly said: “Barack Obama is an amateur” in Edward Klein's similarly titled 2012 book. In retrospect 5 years later, that assessment is spot-on. Notice how today's LA Times's fictional smear of Donald Trump actually perfectly fits his predecessor:

“[Barack Obama] was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters. The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a 'catastrophe'.”

By any objective measure, the Obama years were exactly that: the worst of any modern U.S. president. For the record, Donald Trump opposes the dysfunctional and dictatorial Washington “swamp” that Mr. Obama exploited. While the LA Times freely vilifies The Donald as “authoritarian,” they completely disregard the guy who actually was. Of the two, which ultra-constitutional president ruled by fiat with executive orders? Which one bragged about using a pen and a phone as a middle finger to Congress; our system's lawmaking body? It's frankly Orwellian for them to conflate Obama's totalitarianism with Trump's anti-establishment stance that liberty-loving Americans cheer!

Like Obama, these anonymous scribblers have a tenuous relationship with reality. See how desperate they are to rehabilitate his failed legacy; to change the subject by unfairly besmirching his replacement. How is their extended Trump hit piece not an adverse reaction to his ongoing dismantling of the last guy's ruinous policies? How else does one logically explain this newspaper's unhinged four-piece tirade that wrongly transposes Obama's misdeeds and track record with Trump's? The LA Times's premature condemnation proves their birdbrained publication had indeed flown the coop! Ideologues' blind devotion to a facade: same as Gatsby's deluded love for Daisy, another unworthy idol.

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

Hillary's Three Monkeys Defense

“I know nothing about this. I can't deal with every one of his [Trump's] conspiracy theories.” – Hillary Clinton, following the 3^rd presidential debate on October 19, 2016

Spoken straight-faced by she with whoppers of fish stories that would make Herman Melville—in a boat with Ernest Hemingway—positively green with envy. History recalls another tall tale this spider spun, her paranoid claim of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against hubby Bill during his '90s “bimbo eruptions.” Today, during the 3^rd debate, it's her fantastical claim of “Russian interference” in next month's presidential election. By well-established reputation, this habitual liar says it's so (citing 17 faceless government entities to back up her latest yarn)—so why wouldn't everyone believe her?

Apparently, the only conspiracies Hillary subscribes to are the ones she promotes. Other than that, for her, the modus operandi that works so well for all deluded Democrats is see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil (especially their own).

Tight-lipped Hillary Clinton in her Dr. Evil style Maoist pantsuit “knows nothing” about bused in, violent protesters paid by Democratic operatives to disrupt Donald Trump's rallies. Out of hand she disregards the hidden-camera videos released this week by the conservative group Project Veritas Action. (Apparently only an audio tape of Trump's locker room banter counts.) How easily Mrs. Clinton ignores Democrats' immoral acts, their accompanying discussion of their political dirty tricks; their further disclosure of (Marco Rubio's “non-existent”) voter fraud!

Specifically, campaign consultant Zulema Rodriguez, whose words are highlighted on a video called “Rigging the Election,” (released Monday) naturally claims selective editing of her admission:

“What was omitted and what I constantly repeated to the infiltrators was that my team and I work together to make sure everyone stays safe while exercising their rights. I believe this to my core.”

Speaking of shocks to the core, perhaps she and Michelle Obama could start a therapy group! The fact remains that she collectively received more than $21,000 from three pro-Hillary political organizations per Federal Election Commission records. The threat of her inspired mob caused Mr. Trump to cancel a rally in Chicago last March. Furthermore, Ms. Rodriguez acknowledged that her team “also did the Arizona one where we shut the highway down.” Since when is doing that a protester's “right to be exercised”?

Obviously, Hillary's monkey business minions have been caught red-handed. It remains to be seen if she—the real-life villain out of an Austin Powers movie—will ultimately be brought to justice. Despite Mrs. Clinton's post-debate denial, the only thing really not known here is the future. Given her fondness for high collared pantsuits, will wearing a big house orange jumpsuit be so different? Just this scintillating possibility is worth electing Donald Trump president on November 8th.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Forgetting Clintons' Scandals with Trump's Words

“And all the kids [Democrats; biased MSM] cheered! But I didn’t cheer. I stood right up and started shouting. This isn’t what happened last week! Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn’t fair!” – Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes in “Misery” (1990)

Who among us would not agree that the contentious exchanges between insider Hillary Clinton and outsider Donald Trump have not been a “misery” (for the rest of us)? In different ways, the two candidates are a warped fun house mirror into the American political character—or lack thereof. Unfairly demonized in the press, Donald Trump's boorish playboy ways can easily be excused as red blooded carnal excess. Certainly, the bullish erector of phallic skyscrapers is no boy scout. So what? In presidential politics—as in real estate—neither arena is for the faint of heart.

Unless you're as newly delicate as Michelle Obama now claims to be. Suddenly she's a retiring flower, recoiling from the horror (the horror!) of Donald Trump's taped jocular language! One imagines many put-upon butlers rolling their eyes from coddling madame in her rarefied White House bubble. Which of her serfs fetched the industrial-sized smelling salts from 5-star chefs in the White House's kitchens to revive her?

Ah, designer duds Michelle. Apparently, her sensibilities are so much finer than ours; her troubles so much more severe! How she must have steeled her nerves to absorb Mr. Trump's locker room banter. Of course, it's just decade old words from a private conversation. But Michelle wants the Thought Police dispatched forthwith! How dare The Donald make such coarse noises! Michelle's rocked: 'shaken to her core.' Why is it that Mr. Trump's language staggers her, but not Bill's immoral sexual escapades, or Hillary's amoral lies or Server-gate criminality?

Consider the Obama daughters, Malia is 18 and Sasha is 15. Most mothers of daughters—especially gullible teenagers—wouldn't want a man of Bill Clinton's predatory history skulking around the White House. After all, Mr. Clinton did much more than simply talk: he acted out. For example, during his presidency he turned the Oval Office into a boudoir for adulterous trysts with Monica Lewinsky; then an impressionable intern just a few years older than the Obama girls.

How vigorously the MSM defended Bill Clinton's numerous affairs, his “bimbo eruptions” in the '90s as “just sex.” (Specifically, Hillary demonized Ms. Lewinsky as “a narcissistic loony tune” until irrefutable DNA evidence emerged from her blue dress.) Furthermore, during Mr. Clinton's impeachment proceedings how stridently the press argued that his private life had absolutely nothing to do with his ability to govern. And foolishly the public bought that real whopper of a fish story. Yet, in “Crisis of Character,” former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne directly observed:

“I witnessed firsthand the Clintons' personal and professional dysfunction: So consumed were they by scandal, so intent on destroying their real or imagined enemies, that governing became an afterthought.”

In retrospect of those scandal-plagued years Mr. Byrne's statement rings true. In the final analysis, has any politician been more directed by the orientation of his zipper than Bill Clinton?

So it is with crooked Hillary's lawbreaking, her greed and titanic lies. Once again, same as before, the legacy media is promoting Clintonian corruption as “no big deal.” This time instead of Bill's hanky-panky, it's Hillary's “damned emails.” Or is it lying repeatedly to Congress, the FBI and the American people? Or perhaps it's the pay for play influence peddling scandal via the charitable sham that is the Clinton Family Foundation? Is it really a good idea to put the most powerful country in the world in the hands of a person with no discernible moral code? What does Hillary Clinton really stand for besides her own lawlessness, recklessness and relentless self-promotion?

Any U.S. president to the electorate is very much like a de facto marriage. As an analogy, why would any sane person elect (or marry) “a partner” who cannot be trusted to act in the U.S.'s best interests? That's the existential question that has led to failed Obama's reelection—and threatens to derail the country entirely if Hillary Clinton replaces him. Facts are often not pretty things. From this two-faced Democratic triumvirate—if any of their lips were moving—when didn't they lie about something? That overarching dynamic has defined both Bill Clinton's and Barack Obama's presidencies. Why would Hillary's be any different? The scandals change—but the lying doesn't. That's what's truly inexcusable here. Beyond that, why is the public so conditioned to accept the big lie (after the dastardly deed)? More to the point: what insanity compels them to keep pulling the polling levers for these wrongdoers anyway? Is this the real-life mass amnesia Annie Wilkes complains about?

Why are Democrats forgiven everything while Republicans are given no latitude whatsoever? Still, no matter what the propagandist media reports, there remains a vast difference between Trump's words and Bill and Hillary's misdeeds. Annie's right: fair is fair. Only the deluded or the dishonest believe that either scandal embroiled Clinton is fit for office. And why should triviality automatically disqualify Mr. Trump? Certainly not his vocalizations: as unsubstantial as the hot air coming from his mindless detractors.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Wife of Bernie Sunk School

Decisions made by Bernie Sanders's better half—his wife, Jane—have run a small Vermont private school, Burlington College, into the ground. Her seven-year tenure as president lasted from 2004 to 2011 ending with a golden parachute: a $200,000 severance package. In 2010, she directed the institution in its $10 million purchase of 33 acres along the bank of Lake Champlain from the Roman Catholic Diocese. Fast forward to 2014, 25 acres have been re-sold for $7 million or a $3 million dollar loss to real estate developer Eric Farrell. This real boon to him, a failed hail Mary effort to keep the school's doors open. Those doors will close for good on May 27^th, ironically just shy of Memorial Day, Monday. As past is prelude, the millennial teachable moment for the 2016 presidential election? Ruling progressive/socialists like Jane, Bernie—and Hillary—always personally live large. However, their Obama style big government policies always leave ruin in their wake.

What was her grandiose, utopian plan? An empty pledge to double the student enrollment. How is that unrealized promise any different than her socialist hubby's of “free” public college? Her pipe dream was to be a paradise: a beautiful new campus funded on borrowed money. What now remains? About 30 educators and staff out of work—and a lender making angry noises about potential fraud in the application filed by Mrs. Sanders. (“Jane, you got some splainin' to do!”) Likewise is Bernie's absurd advocacy of a 90% tax rate, and expanded government dependence programs that will add 18 trillion to the nation's already mammoth, and climbing, 19 trillion dollar debt. (Recall that 9 trillion of that has been added by Mr. Obama alone). Yet, make no mistake, Burlington College's fate is a litmus test of Sanders' style failed leadership. Like wife, like husband, trust that that apple doesn't fall far from its tree!

As proof, anyone at the now bankrupt Burlington College can attest, the economics of socialism are inherently unsustainable. Britain’s prime minister, Margaret Thatcher famously said the real problem with socialist governments is that “they always run out of other people’s money.” Well, precisely. Socialists redistribute (think Obamacare). They steal from (capitalist) “Peter” to bribe (voter) “Paul”—and governmentthey mismanage controls all! In a nutshell, that's the fascist Obama presidency. Specifically, consider coddled Michelle Obama's attitude of entitlement as her husband stoops to “lead” us. Therefore, it is no surprise to any clear thinking person that job creators have been driven out of America (read: widespread corporate inversion). These hard leftist locusts rule and consume resources until there is no money left to beg, borrow or steal. Then, these characters perpetually claim hollow victories (fairness! equality!) and move on. All that is required is Mr. Obama's political optics. His formula: a few disconnected, cursory remarks, maybe a fly-in photo-op (read: Flint's water crisis) then onto those all-important waiting golf links. The end result is almost 8 chaotic years of anti-Americanism from every direction. Indeed, our society has been mangled—twisted backwards, upside down and inside out. Hence Black Lives Matter. So much for the hope in that change.

Examples of progressive failures abound. Think of Maryland's “singing cowboy,” former governor Martin O'Malley's “millionaire's tax.” (His “flush tax” and “rain tax” are also real gems.) Of course there is the economic downturn perpetuated by continuous overspending with America's Chinese credit card, and tax-and-spend policies of the aforementioned Obama Administration. Yet, let's cast the net even wider. Think of Venezuela's toilet paper shortage, and two-day work week. Does Jane Sanders's failed leadership, “the crushing weight” of debt incurred during her presidency, portend her husband's?

Jane was Burlington College's fourth president, but rest assured Bernie won't be America's 45^th. That honor is likely reserved for his opposite counterpart, a blustering populist and plain-speaking pro-American capitalist who defies all political odds, and has galvanized the electorate. Someone who actually knows how keep the lights on, the doors open—and pay the bills.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

MSM's Scorn for GOP First Ladies

Does the press have unfair criticism of Republicans in their DNA? I refer not to U.S. presidents—who as leaders of the Free Word remain fair game—but the MSM's habitual “mean girl” treatment of their Republican spouses. Contrast that to the often blind, fawning praise lavished on their generally inferior Democratic counterparts.

The most blatant example of “journalistic” bias is the widespread nay-saying of recently departed Nancy Reagan. The fact remains that she was the central figure to a great president's personal happiness—and by any objective standard—she conducted herself with the commensurate grace of her husband as a positive symbol of American optimism to the world. What in death is trumpeted from the liberal media? The petty criticism of perhaps a cool interpersonal persona uniformly condemned by the powers-that-be with the same coded watchword: “frosty.” (Google it: this precise accusation reverberates stentorian in liberal publications across the globe like a 21^st century “telephone game.”) Whether this subjective interpretation holds some semblance of truth is ultimately not the point. Greatness is negated by a minuscule, all too human flaw by less fine examples of humanity: progressive ideologues attacking the historical reputation with the politically-motivated venom of the yellowest journalism.

Meanwhile, let us move across the aisle. Former first lady (and current Democratic presidential front-runner) Hillary Clinton, with the well known fact-based reputation as a “liar” is downplayed in the media or ignored as a phantom “right wing conspiracy.” For example, this kind of nonsense regularly comes from liberal columnists like The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus who wrote, “This may sound strange coming from someone who doesn't expect Hillary Clinton to be indicted [on influence-peddling and corruption] and doesn't think she should be...”. Ms. Marcus's knee-jerk fealty to the Democratic Party is more than “strange.” It's completely wrong, same as her “coverage” of Hillary. (In actuality, that's really “for” not “of.” ) Indeed, she's nothing more than a political true believer with a press pass. To any “real” journalist, the first duty is always to the public good—to demand accountability and justice before any other consideration.

Ms. Marcus is so conditioned by the moral equivalency of the tumultuous Obama years, she has become hysterically blind to the purpose and equalizing value of law. To her, even indisputable evidence of wrongdoing—perhaps even treasonous activity—is negated by Hillary's elitist powerbroker status. Irrationally, Ms. Marcus adds, “there has to be a way to provide more information, in a timely [before election day] way, from a credible source.” That's code for “not Republicans.” So, like her third estate compatriots, she wants Mr. Obama to spin yet another slow-roll tall tale to protect Mrs. Clinton presidential prospects, at least until after November 4^th anyway. As that's his go-to modus operandi for the numerous and monumental failures of his presidency, why would he do anything different now?

Speaking of the Obamas, let us shift to his “better half” first lady. Ah. pampered, coddled Michelle. She disregards the perks of travel on Air Force One and bulletproof limousines, the prime D.C. address and 24-hour Secret Service protection, the executive chef and small army of personal assistants. As a ceremonial model of American taxpayer largesse, she wore two floral designer frocks by designer Carolina Herrera valued at $6,680 or 23 times the average yearly salary of Cuba's working class or $288. But this little lady of excess and entitlement isn't satisfied. She wants to be paid for her time as first lady. And why shouldn't she gripe at not getting her government welfare check?

To the ho-hum MSM all of this is such a bore and a non-story. Why shouldn't Michelle complain if she wants? At least she look absolutely fabulous while doing so! Specifically, The New York Times praised Michelle Obama's fashion choices in Cuba: “When the important questions of the day—human rights, the future of the American trade embargo, Cuba’s future—were raised (if not settled), a frothier one came to the fore: Cuba was giving a party. What would Michelle Obama wear?” Compare this laudatory rather breezy (and blasé) tone to that same publication who hammered Nancy Reagan for sporting fashionable duds in 1981: “The gold crown is studded with costly jewels. The dress is of finest brocade. The cape is snowy ermine. But the majestic woman on what may be Washington's best-selling post card is not, on second glance, Queen Elizabeth II of Britain. It's Nancy Reagan.” Fashion is subjective, the media's complete lack of even-handedness is not. (What ever happened to journalism's core principle of objectivity?)

Pegging politics to fashion's shifting hemlines is nothing new. As the axiom goes: when skirts get longer Democrats lose. I, for one, hope fervently for a new and sudden Amish fashion craze. Joking aside, there is an underlying historical context to all of this that, once again, lays bare the discriminatory behavior of the media toward only the Republican first ladies. I coyly refer to '60s fresh faced fashion icon Jacqueline Kennedy versus outgoing first lady Mamie Eisenhower. Given that Jackie was young and gorgeous (same as her “Camelot” presidential husband), at 64 the outgoing Mamie Eisenhower never had a chance. I mean then in November 1960 or today 56 years later.

I refer to the tale spun by author Kate Andersen Brower: “Mamie’s husband was being replaced by a Democrat, and her own role was being assumed by a woman she sneeringly referred to as “the college girl.” Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy’s beauty, her modern touch, and her youthful, cutting-edge style would soon eclipse Mrs. Eisenhower’s frumpy shirtwaist dresses, pearl chokers and short bangs.” Notice the language choices. Mamie, the Republican, is cast in the worst light as “sneering” and “frumpy” while Democrat Jackie is inversely afforded the same pattern of maximal praise with terms like “modern” and “cutting-edge.”

Truthfully, only these two women—like Nancy, now silenced forever by death—knew how they really felt about each other or could authentically speak to the dynamics of their relationship. In tacit acknowledgment of this fact, in the print version (superimposed in the article's corresponding photograph): What were they thinking (intended to be provocative) floats beneath their feet. Therefore, in the final analysis, one tends to discount this Washington Post guest columnist with a book to hawk—more than half a century after these events transpired.

To be fair—something the liberal media clearly isn't, at least when it comes to the Republicans—I think Ms. Brower's description of JFK's wife is true to life. Yet, even if all of the positive qualities assigned to Jackie are accurate, the skin deep, always glowing narrative instantly afforded all Democrats isn't really the point, is it? When it comes to Republican first ladies, the propagandist MSM has a real political axe to grind. To misappropriate a fashion term, they have hate-tinged “darts” to throw.

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

Barack's Shaming, MLK Mirror

Given the ongoing, fawning MSM coverage of our first black U.S. president, to revisit the 'him' of this pair of peas in a political pod now seems inevitable. 'Hers' was an appropriately appalled reaction to a Marie Antoinette-style sense of coddled, arrogant entitlement called Michelle's chastising, honest mirror. Likewise, 'his' will detail her fascist hubby as the antithesis of MLK's dream. MLK would have advocated a positive, unifying figure who, through example, sees beyond superficial differences of color or creed. We got the opposite: a manipulative, divisively petty personage who stirs up current or “past grievances” (reflecting his personal biases) for a divisive political effect beneficial to Mr. Obama and his fellow travelers in the Democratic Party.

An important critique of Obama's classless “character” such as it is: our black president ignores Lincoln, the Great Emancipator's 150^th anniversary rather than appropriating honoring a truly prescient American leader. (That was a president who knew how to use executive orders to good, long term effects.) Contrast an abolitionist decisively ending the horror of slavery with something beyond his wildest imagination: a black president who customary race-baits (same as differences of class, gender, orientation etc.) as political wedges to turn American society against itself. This ideologue's reason? To distract from personal ownership of his abject failures domestically and abroad.

Specifically, Mr. Obama constantly changes the subject from his obtuse ineptness. To that end, he uses the visibility of the presidency to repeatedly elevate and exaggerate the import of minor, otherwise isolated and unfortunate incidences (read: Henry Louis Gates Jr.; Trayvon Martin; Darren Wilson UN speech) into full-blown scandals. Given his well established pattern, he perpetuates artificial crisis to short-circuit debate (read: demonized Republican objections to his “pen and phone” imperialistic change.) Indeed, Mr. Obama wields power to compel progressive change. This is the way of all law-violating fascists. (In retrospect, the “hope,” it turns out, was a pipe-dream; a superficial sound-good 2008 campaign slogan.)

Aided at every turn is the biased MSM, the Democrats' slavish humpbacked creature who minimizes (or completely ignores) the virtual Noah's Ark of unresolved pink elephant issues (illegal aliens; porous U.S. borders; potential terrorists re-settled here as Islamic migrants), and shrieking gorilla situations (read: ISIS; Iranian nuclear deal; 19 trillion debt). Then, there is the third category, those alternate-universe dupes who carry press badges like devotional rosaries who waste breath on the embers of this man's presidency, and his shameful legacy. That's The Washington Post's Petula Dvorak.

Ms. Dvorak wrongly claims that Mr. Obama is the victim (rather than a perpetrator) of hate. Fallout, she assumes, from what is admittedly the most crassly juvenile, small-ball issue, unpredictable presidential race in modern history. Yet, given how these same dynamics have exactly mirrored Mr. Obama's own contentious tenure, one would think he would be quite at ease.

In nature, what else would Mr. Obama be other than a parasitic organism, a bottom-feeder sapping America's strength and poisoning her citizens' good will? Look around at the carnage of a once thriving nation. From E Pluribus Unum—out of many: one—to the divisive Obama Doctrine of rewarding friends (read: cronies of now bankrupt Solyndra) and punishing enemies (read: the American people; Republicans; Israel and the West). What hasn't fallen apart in his almost eight years of honing little more than his golf game? Truthfully, Mr. Obama has damaged our republic at every opportunity—perhaps beyond repair—with his nebulous “fundamental transformation of America.”

The only hate that truly exists is reflected back in Mr. Obama's own gilded presidential mirror. What Ms. Dvorak is completely oblivious to is the simple logic that one does not “fundamentally transform” anything that is truly beloved in the first place. (I challenge Ms. Dvorak to try that tack on her significant other some time—and see where she ends up. I'm betting the dog house, if she is lucky.) Moreover, his hate-filled effort to change America from a capitalistic haven of upper-mobility to a full-on big-government socialistic hell, has been neither gentle or measured. It has been more than seven years of polarizing gale-force winds, boiling over American's “melting pot.” In effect, he has pressure-cooked America's First World golden goose status to a ruined, debt-laden husk.

As America's first rabble-rousing president, Mr. Obama has intentionally exploited our society along its inherent fault lines. Specifically, he used his ethnicity to silence (and unfairly smear) detractors as innately intolerant, rather than respecting their legitimate right in a democracy to object. Case and point: on the campaign trail, he certainly objected to George W. Bush's accumulated debt (4.899T) as irresponsible and unpatriotic. And how Mr. Obama—grand hypocrite that he is—has outdone Mr. Bush on these measures (to a degree the Republican could hardly fathom) is obvious. In any case, what loyal American would not take issue with Mr. Obama's anti-American posturing (read: Castro Cuba trip). His job-killing economics (read: 93 million jobless; 8.63T Obama debt (difference between 10.6 debt at end of Bush II presidency and current escalating figure of 19.23T))? His wealth redistribution via the government's bureaucratic ObamaCare take-over of the one-sixth of the economy (and the world's best medical system)?

Have the well-heeled Obamas forgotten where or how they have lived for the better part of almost two presidential terms? Perhaps the greatest sin of these truly careless people is their complete disregard of the widespread suffering of average citizens during the Obama years. They forgot long ago that they work for us, not the other way around. It is we—not once, but twice—who have placed them in the rarefied air they frivolously waste. They are there by electoral votes, not divine right (much as they pretend otherwise.)

What is truly unseemly here is the lack of compassion, kindness or respect shown by the Obamas for the rest of us. We struggle to pay bills, and worry mightily about an uncertain future—caused, in large measure, by this president. Meanwhile, utterly tone-deaf, Mr. Obama has “transformed” the presidency into “lifestyles of the rich and famous.” His mindless extended vacations of golf games, tangos in far-flung tropical locales, and watching baseball with decades-old American's geo-political foes are a complete embarrassment. The intrepid Ms. Dvorak makes a real funny with: “For someone who has been attacked the way Obama has... who has endured verbal assaults and [unrealized] physical threats to his family President Obama's demeanor has been dignified.” So, one again, a Post columnist discloses that Mr. Obama shares his wife's high class problem: what others say about them. In the final analysis, how dignified is a president who heartlessly abandoned Chicago families to record-setting, senselessly tragic killings of their children at the hands of their peers? Spinning no doubt restlessly in his grave, I wonder what colorful language MLK would have for Mr. Obama's pampered sensibilities!

For her part, Ms. Dvorak does her “journalistic” duty as professional fluffer for Mr. Obama's deservedly tattered reputation. She cites the meaningless measure of a weekly Gallup poll of presidential approval: Obama's 53 percent compared to that of George W. Bush, his predecessor's 32 percent during the same time frame. (A partisan swipe at Republicans for good measure.) Speaking of world leaders, I would dearly like a candid poll of their impressions regarding this current president. Out of Mr. Obama's earshot how friend and foe alike must snicker at this apology-tour adventurer, this emperor with no clothes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize a pervasive level of rightful resentment for this Tiger Woods-style fop literally “playing at being commander-in-chief.” (Incidentally, this precise, unfounded Ronald Reagan smear by liberals fits Mr. Obama to a golf link “tee.”)

Ms. Dvorak's column reads like a '60s-style homage to the period piece “The Help.” A time now long past, when blacks were routinely marginalized and discriminated against solely due to their skin color. Her writing apes this warmed-over, superficial skin-deep claim. Specifically, for her ilk, race is always the causal factor for any negative attention directed at this first black U.S. president. Meanwhile, she completely neglects even the merest mention of Mr. Obama's real-life track record of aforementioned failures: “Obama received triple the number of threats that previous presidents faced... [b]oth the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have seen huge jumps in threats against the president and the formation of hate groups during the past seven years.” The social and economic context—which this piece briefly details—is never even hinted at, stated explicitly or adequately explained.

Undercutting the serious nature of her subject matter, she uses slang unworthy of a precocious middle-schooler—let alone a major newspaper scribe—when she scribbles, “It's impossible to utter a single word about the White House, the first family or the president without a blast from the fire hose of haterade.” (For those of us rare birds who confine ourselves to the use of proper English, the Urban Dictionary defines this absurd term as a figurative drink consumed by those who, in turn, are consumed by the negativity of their subject matter.) Beyond demonstrating that she truly is a bad writer, this half-wit is an insult to even the yellowest journalist. Ms. Dvorak is so out of touch—so hysterically blind as the man she thoughtlessly lionizes—she mistakenly assigns bile appropriately directed at him as a “sign of the times” rather than as a natural consequence of Mr. Obama's own words, deeds and policies.

As spurious proof of “everybody else's hate,” she cites one reader's irate response to Mr. Obama, “Go back to Kenya.” The reader's curious assertion brings up a salient, still unresolved point: Mr. Obama's nebulous background and upbringing. (To make an analogy, Mr. Obama's authentic-or-not released long-form birth certificate continues to be as controversial and uncertain as the “settled” science of “global warming,” now discredited, and re-labeled as vague “climate change.”) Likewise, Mr. Obama's own wife publicly muddied the waters at a Denver luncheon during an August 2008 GLBT speech: “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya... showing folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested, and we did it as a couple.” Would any worldly and educated spouse in a 20 year marriage ever misspeak her husband's birth origin—and not bother to issue a correction? Moreover, would any American generally confuse a home country with somewhere else? No wonder the rumor persists to this day that Mr. Obama is a foreign-born Muslim. After all, that's how he acts, and where his loyalties evidently philosophically lie.

Ms. Dvorak is encroaching dangerously on Courtland Milloy's murky turf as the Post's resident racial-scribbler. Not surprisingly, both of these progressive potted plants masquerading as journalists sing from the identical Democratic-sanctioned sheet music: both summarily condemn Americans as being secretly guilty of “racial contempt” regarding the Obamas. Yet, this is a factual impossibility. After all, by large margins, average Americans voted Mr. Obama into the highest office in the land through two election cycles. If race truly was a negatively pervasive element that could never have happened.

Therefore, the unfounded rumor and intangible innuendo these columnists wrongly engage in is nothing more than propaganda. They blame the “scenery” rather than the “star” of the show. In Ms. Dvorak's case, she compares the current presidential campaign to a primordial swamp (another veiled, unworthy swipe at Republicans). Yet, the real problem remains where it always has been with Mr. Obama—likely the worst U.S. president in recent memory, if ever. Certainly, her unwarranted, sycophantic praise of a black man bereft of MLK's content of character only mirrors a delusional true-believer with sludge stuck between her ears.

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

Michelle's Chastising, Honest Mirror

If ever there are two peas in a political pod they are Barack and Michelle Obama. Even before Mr. Obama's first election Michelle Obama said of her fascist hubby, “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.” That sounds like something that would come easily out of the mouth of a Castro spouse rather than a supposedly liberty-loving first lady. Indeed, Obama and wife are chock-full of these nebulous statements which when seen correctly lay plain their anti-Americanism (that the similarly biased MSM ignores.) Family vacationing from Cuba or passively watching her mindless husband tango in Buenos Aires, who besides brain-washed millennials (who waste their votes on Socialist Bernie Sanders) believe in the Obamas' fidelity to America?

While Courtland Milloy's biological age technically precludes him from the millennial generation, his role as The Washington Post's resident racial-scribbler—and his latest Michelle Obama puff piece—has the same probative value as millennial ideas about future political leadership. Of this lady, Mr. Milloy sycophantically sings the blues: “Michelle Obama, still standing tall, chin up, despite nearly eight years of enduring... racial contempt for the Obamas [and] an unprecedented barrage of ugliness toward her.” Fundamentally, this statement is patently false, and irrational. Precisely how can a voting citizenry who freely, proudly and publicly elevate the first Afro-American couple to the White House—not once, but twice—be secretly guilty of “racial contempt?”

In retrospect, although well-intentioned, a hope-filled American people foolishly gave the Obamas an eight-year key to the kingdom: stewardship of the greatest country in the world. In return, the Obamas—like the petulant low-rent tenants they are—have entirely squandered a golden opportunity to unify the nation as MLK dreamed. Worse, they have been MLK's antithesis, having wrecked the joint abroad (read: the Middle East) and at home. Domestically, they have constantly exploited “history-based racial grievances” (read: Democrats' victimization playbook) whenever a gracefully long-suffering public (not Michelle as Mr. Milloy wrongly claims) legitimately complains about her husband's job-killing, wealth redistribution policies. For example, almost 10 trillion added to the debt is just one of the Obama booby prizes left to yet unborn future American generations to pay for. Exactly who is being ugly here? Is it the Obamas who act with the carelessness of Roman emperors or the American people who have generously entrusted them with such never-ending faith?

It's a wonder to me that a beneficiary of more than seven years of tax-payer funded 24-hour Secret Service protection would ever have “ a lot of sleepless nights... fearing how my girls world feel if they found out what some people were saying about their mom.” So, 'Madam Political Correctness'—like all proponents of anti-First Amendment word-burning—worries about what other people say about her. That's a pretty high class problem to any Chicago mother whose child is gunned down by the ongoing, almost daily black-on-black homicide ignored by the Obamas since their 2008 departure. Mr. Milloy equates the act of one unhinged gunman that broke a White House window in September 2014 or the generations-removed vandalized Georgia monument (dedicated to her slavery-born great-great-great grandmother) as spurious evidence of how she has greatly suffered ugliness to rule us. Meanwhile, ensconced in perpetual 5-star accommodations (that would make pampered Marie Antoinette green with envy) with Air Force One at the ready and a cadre of personal assistants in tow, the Obamas' attitude of arrogant entitlement has disgraced MLK's memory in the same manner as their lack of care has betrayed the black community.

Under the guise of the yellowest journalism, Courtland Milloy repeatedly promotes the general fiction of hidden “American racism.” To reiterate today's “proof”: a toppled marker and a broken window. To any clearly thinking person, how do two isolated, indirect acts of criminality demonstrate anything of greater importance? Simple answer: they don't. Leftist ideologue Milloy has manipulated these unremarkable, unconnected occurrences to conjure a bogeyman out of whole cloth designed to silence warranted criticism of Ms. Pouty-Face 'hashtag bring home our girls.' (Incidentally, since her 2014 selfie, it seems the hundreds of kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls by the Islamic Extremist group Boko Haram have fallen completely off the Obama radar—same as America's current prospects as the Obamas globe trot to tropical locales: Cuba, Buenos Aires and beyond.)

Mr. Milloy's fortuitous column artificially burnishes Michelle Obama's flagging reputation, much like that of her politically lame-duck husband. It's all rubbish, of course. A distraction from all of the above; a change of subject from the real 300-pound gorilla shrieking a reality that no one in the MSM will address. That truth: criticism of the Obamas has nothing whatsoever to do with skin color. It never has. In the 21^st century, the American people have graduated to the consistent use of MLK's content of character as a means of evaluation. (Proof of this is seen everywhere in the greater acceptance of gay rights and gay marriage.)

In the case of the Obamas, they have failed to honor American economic and geo-political interests or dearly-held cultural values. All the while, they are rightly blamed for living-large while the rank and file have suffered mightily under the inept, tone-deaf ministrations of Mr. Obama—and his no better, coddled wife.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976