“Winning” In D.C.'s Swamp?

“[T]his was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” – Democratic nominee Barack Obama's victory speech on June 3, 2008

Thankfully, the 2016 presidential election “shattered” heir apparent Hillary Clinton's White House prospects; perhaps forever. Mercifully, that means no Clinton promised “Obama third term”. America has finally been liberated from these twin progressive scourges. His was an utterly failed record: defined by divisive rhetoric—an almost Messianic cult of personality—and delusions of grandeur. (Specifically, Obama desired to dismantle the goodness embodied by “apple pie” Americanism.) On the other hand, her's is endless lies and scandals (strongly suggesting lawbreaking and corruption). Today, America is in far better hands, but only in relation to the grizzly alternative. Clearly, shifting from a dogmatic leftist ideologue to a populist outsider is an improvement. Yet, what remains is the unyielding quagmire of beltway elites (of both parties) coupled with Trump's surface narrative of “winning”.

For Mr. Trump's showiness, let us not be reminded of smirking selfie-obsessed Barack Obama. A superficial politician of illusory “accomplishments” (and hard leftist transformation who Bill Clinton pegged correctly as “an amateur”). Obama—the worst president of the modern age—was defined by a fatiguing number of inauthentic, self-congratulatory victory laps (between 333 rounds of golf per CBS reporter Mark Knoller). What's more egregious, his exchange of likely traitor Bowe Bergdahl for five high-level terrorists, his U.S. Iran payoff of 1.7 billion or his U.S.-Iran nuclear “deal” that wasn't? In every case, geopolitical adversaries were coddled and emboldened. Meanwhile, Obama claimed legacy-defining “successes” while America suffered domestically and receded further from relevancy on the international stage.

One hopes that the election of a real winner—a billionaire capitalist epitomizing the American Dream—will not follow suit. Indeed, doesn't such a person know the difference between Obama's show business tenure—and brick and mortar substance? Unfortunately, thus far, that remains to be seen. Specifically, the ObamaCare Lite “Republican” health-care bill, such as it is, finally squeaked by the House of Representatives. As it still faces the daunting and uncertain hurtle of passage in the Senate, it's hardly a done deal. Therefore, why did President Trump recently declare victory in the rose garden flanked by a phalanx of clapping, smiling GOP flunkeys? Obviously, pro-American deal making is necessary. Yet, isn't the devil in the details? Why are they being glossed over by this president in the same careless manner as the disastrous last one?

In fairness, Donald Trump has quickly discovered that confronting the status quo (read: “draining the swamp”) of the beltway bubble is a Herculean task worthy of that demigod's twelve punishing labors. This progressive/RINO “new budget compromise” funding the government through September is a measure precisely antithetical to the new president's priorities. Why then do they bankroll America's primary abortion provider Planned Parenthood? (For context, this organization was founded by Hillary Clinton's hero Margaret Sanger: an unapologetic racist and eugenicist. Thus, the reason it's overwhelmingly found in minority neighborhoods is no mystery.) Likewise, the GOP supposedly opposes sanctuary cities. Yet, those lawless enclaves—that regularly endanger local citizens' lives (read: San Francisco's Kate Steinle killed by a repeatedly deported illegal alien)—are fully funded too. Aren't Congressional Republicans supposed to be pro-life in all its guises?

Related to criminal border jumpers and the unnecessary cost of lives, what of Trump's pledge to build a U.S.-Mexican wall? Of the Republican response, Breitbart astonishingly reports:

“The fine print in the bipartisan 2017 budget plan includes several paragraphs designed to prevent Donald Trump's deputies from building a border wall with the reserve cash routinely stored in agency saving accounts.”

So, there's zero allotted to the meaningful construction of a long overdue physical barrier? By comparison, contrast that to the $295.9 million funneled to bail out Puerto Rico's bankrupt Medicare system. How is giving more money to island wastrels a good idea? Isn't that the definition of flushing good money after bad? What does this two-faced Republican majority actually stand for—besides themselves?

How else does one explain their intentional disregard of President Trump's election-winning agenda? Hence, a long-standing political pattern emerges from the murky bowels of the political swamp. In practice, Nancy Pelosi's priorities are indistinguishable from Paul Ryan's. Put simply, they're all entrenched Washington “swamp creatures”! Remember when this newly minted House Speaker promised a “fresh start”? Right out of the gate, what did he deliver? He rubber-stamped the progressives' 2 trillion dollar budget! Today's budgetary expenditures are just more of the same.

Paul Ryan and his weak-willed ilk habitually capitulate to Democrats despite their “leadership” position. Then, amazingly, victory is universally declared. Both sides crow about something “good sounding” at first blush. Yet, ultimately, their shortsighted choices are unmistakably detrimental in the well being of future generations. You know, those yet unborn left to pay the tab of their irresponsible largesse. In truth, what are these out of touch elitists really doing—besides rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (read: the iceberg that's America's escalating 19.9 trillion dollar debt)?

Speaking of the massive, what's a bigger ego-trip then being a U.S. president? Still, Mr. Trump must resist Washington's insulated grandiosity. (A temptation so vulgarly indulged by his preening predecessor.) As a lesson, Ronald Reagan never engaged in such self-glorifying impulses. In this regard, he should consider William L. Jenkins's words as a template:

“President Reagan always gave the credit to the American people and American ideals. He treated his job as a valuable temporary loan from the American people, a loan that should be respected and returned with dutiful appreciation.”

Thanks to the ballast of the intractable D.C. swamp, the country remains in economic dire straits. That fragile state is equally due to spineless establishment Republicans and obstructionist, spendthrift progressives. For lasting success, Mr. Trump needs to continue to champion sensible, conservative policies. That means bringing needed doses of main street reality to heedless establishment power. Specifically, Congress should be held accountable with the veto, the bully pulpit and at the ballot box. Echoing Obama's absurdist practice of premature—or completely unwarranted self-serving “wins”—is a worthless photo-op. As valid as the ex-president's campaign hype that he could “heal” the planet, or “control” the rise of the oceans. That's the stuff of patients typically found in mental wards. Or is it the decision-makers in Congress? By their results and popularity, who can tell a difference?

Average citizens have had enough of swamp creatures: especially their hollow claims of “victory”. That much is clear. Despite our elected officials' rosy proclamations, rank and file Americans aren't close to experiencing legitimate wins. That's a vital distinction President Trump must make for his—and America's—enduring success. It's the only standard that means anything—and the only way to secure the future of our teetering nation.

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 on Abortion: Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde

“I admire [white supremacist and Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.... I am really in awe of her.” – Hillary Clinton on receiving that organization's highest honor in 2009

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” – Hillary Clinton on NBC’s “Meet the Press” April 3, 2016

While science continues to roll back the timetable for life's inception, that reality has been counterbalanced by the autonomy of a woman's body—and her decision-making right regarding it. Between these two evolving points in time, what remains troublesome is the on demand aspect: the misuse of abortion as de facto birth control (especially related to the termination of late or third trimester pregnancies). As a contextual example, the black community accounts for 36 percent of all abortions (despite being approximately 13 percent of the total U.S. population). Further, since 1973, there have been more than 15 million black children aborted. Given such statistics, is the adage 'the most dangerous place for a child is the womb,' any mystery?

The human procreative power innately compels a basic level of personal responsibility. After all, this is an age when biology is well-understood. Prophylactics, like (often free) men's condoms, are widely available. Similarly, women have multiple low-cost contraceptive choices including the morning-after pill. In short, with minimal planning (under the lion's share of circumstances), there is no reason for an unwanted pregnancy. That is, unless the female in question has made poor personal decisions. If she has, why should society be complicit in paying for her irresponsibility; her choice to end the overwhelmingly likely development of a viable offspring?

As a main purpose of government is to protect its citizens (via funding the police and the military), it's natural for its philosophical orientation to be life-affirming. Thus, the Hyde Amendment which restricts some federal funds to certain welfare recipients (except in cases of rape or incest) makes perfect sense. (Interestingly, an updated version was signed into law by Bill Clinton on October 22, 1993.) Therefore, the only reason the law has come under fire recently is because progressives want abortion available at any time, and under all circumstances. Therefore, they spin the absurdist tale that the 40 year old law is about 'telling a woman how to lead her life' (read: unfairly saddling poor women with the financial drain of unwanted children). So, under the illusion of being “women's rights advocates,” Democrats actually push a different agenda entirely: big government dependence (that they vitally control). Therefore, in this matter, the suggestive science—and individual responsibility—are completely ignored by them.

Hillary Clinton made a Freudian slip when she used the phrase “unborn person” rather than a fetus. She casts abortion narrowly as a sacrosanct women's right, then muddles her basic claim by inadvertently acknowledging the fetus's personhood. The unborn may technically have no constitutional rights. Yet, what of that other foundational American document, the Declaration of Independence's Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? (Apparently, Hillary applies this principle to gun control, but not abortion.) Moreover, as the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Mrs. Clinton approves the historic repeal of the Hyde Amendment while simultaneously enjoying the reputation as a “child advocate”? One gets whiplash decoding her hypocritical double standards; how she plays every side of this issue.

Feminists and conservatives agree: a woman's body is hers, not the state's. Therefore, she must logically own the consequences of its use—same as a man. Indeed, to compel our life-preserving government directly into the any time life termination business is a Soylent Green style schizophrenic expectation. What is truly “cruel” here is not the restrictive Hyde Amendment. It's irresponsible women who shift the blame for their own life-ending inhumanity. Equally culpable are outspoken Jekyll and Hyde politicians like Hillary Clinton who repeatedly finance racist Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood under the guise of providing preventative women's health services.

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

Pope Francis: first responsibility PR, not children's rights

Empty-headed millennial icon Kim Kardashian has made her Twitter pronouncement: “The pope is dope.” Indeed, by every political optics measure, the United States public relations tour to rehab the reputation of the Catholic Church by Pope Francis was a resounding success. Undoubtedly, the main beneficiary will be the waning fortunes of the Church. In his final Mass in Philadelphia (from the Greek philos meaning “love” or “friendship” and adelphos for “brother”), the pope struck just the right tone of 'new beginnings' by meeting with survivors of clergy sexual abuse with the promise to hold accountable those responsible for church scandals.

I sincerely hope he fulfills that public pledge. Unlike a contemporary predecessor, Pope John Paul II, who ignored priest-child abuse, Pope Francis certainly is in position to “clean house” and should do so despite the institution's longstanding history of turning a blind eye to sexual immorality for profit. Even Kim would enthuse: it is W.J.W.D!

However, while in America pro-life Pope Francis neglected to be outspokenly critical of Democrat-supported Planned Parenthood. Likewise, the pontiff should have taken that golden opportunity both to defend the rights of the unborn, and taken top U.S. military brass to task for permitting children to be exploited as sex slaves by Afghan allies on U.S. military bases under all of their very noses. Doesn't the Vicar of Christ have a responsibility to combat this hot-button issue—both within and beyond the Church—wherever it is unfortunately found?

The larger question looms: with the world's eyes upon him, why didn't he?

On the ground, whistle-blowing soldiers with moral objections to arming Afghan pedophiles and making them commanders of local villages have been disciplined and/or faced career ruin for coming forward. As an example, two Green Berets beat up one child-abuser for keeping a boy chained to his bed. For this decent act of coming to the rescue of a defenseless child, one of the soldiers, Captain Dan Quinn, was relieved of his command and pulled out of Afghanistan. The past notwithstanding, doesn't today's disgrace warrant this pope's attention?

Pope Francis, like Obama pre-presidency, is a superficial symbol of 'hope and change.'  However, being at the helm of the world's most popular religion, he needs to do more than metaphorically placing a carnation in the barrel of a gun.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

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

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

Hillary Channels Margaret Sanger

Whenever I write about Democrats and their politics, I feel very much like Alice (on an acid trip) down the rabbit hole in an Orwellian parallel universe that puts Louis Carroll’s dystopian “Wonderland” to shame.  She who will be the Democratic nominee (and statistically is even money to become the next POTUS) – awarded Plan Parenthood’s highest honor in 2009; named after its founder, outspoken racist and eugenics advocate Margaret Sanger – claims that “black lives matter” but publicly defends an institution whose executives were caught on hidden camera video selling aborted fetal organs?  As secretary of state, under America’s first black president, no less, Mrs. Clinton said in her acceptance speech, “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously – her courage, her tenacity, her vision.”  She further affirmed, “I am really in awe of her.”

Let’s see what Mrs. Clinton finds so laudable about the well-known Margaret Sanger: a leading voice of eugenics, defined as a belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits.  This selfsame philosophy (and its disproven pseudo-science) informed Nazi Germany’s racial policies and extermination of Jews and so-called “life not fit for life.”  Essentially, Mrs. Sanger’s view was the creation of a (white) “master race” by determining or otherwise controlling who has children.  Specifically, in a 1925 essay called “The Need of Birth Control in America,” Mrs. Sanger wrote: “Such human weeds [defined by her in published writings alternately as morons/defectives, delinquents/misfits/the maladjusted, and dependents/the poor] clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world, we must cultivate our garden.”  Her radical solution: to segregate and/or neuter those she deemed racially or socially undesirable.  To this end, she influenced state legislatures and local jurisdictions to sterilize “unfit” young people.  That was the underlying purpose of Planned Parenthood, started by “trailblazer” Sanger in 1916.

So why would Mrs. Clinton proudly accept such a dubious honor named for such a nefarious character (especially in light of the history, of which it is reasonable to assume she is aware) and further defend that organization today with the exposure of business practices that would have given Adolf Hitler pause?  Indeed, how can she claim to be a supporter of minority lives and not publicly condemn Planned Parenthood for their profiteering and lack of respect for human dignity?  How in her twisted little mind is the bartering of baby body parts by the powers-that-be at Planned Parenthood – which targets minorities and the poor, underwritten by 500 million taxpayer dollars each year (self-reporting only 3 percent abortive services, or 327,166 [per 10/1/11-9/30/12 figures]) – equate to an “attack on a woman's right to choose”?  Certainly, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t want to address certain truths, so instead she makes an absurd straw-man argument à la Obama by changing the subject.  Indeed, a woman’s right to control her body (which is irrelevant to this situation) has nothing to do with how fetal tissue is scientifically treated or sold in the marketplace.  If the last six years have taught the American people anything, it is that someone who cannot deal with realities on their face has no business being president in 2016, especially when her only qualification – besides a failed record – is the fact that she is a woman who feels some elitist entitlement to the post. 

Mrs. Clinton needs to send back her prized Planned Parenthood Lucite block that bear her and Margaret Sanger’s names – an award that symbolically promotes racial misogyny and abortion.  Until she does, it remains a hypocritical memento to a person – like her amoral former U.S. president husband – who in true Clintonian fashion stands for nothing but her own self-promotion.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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