One Huckster Hawks Another

“I don't think there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.” — President Obama on Hillary Clinton

“His brain has not only been washed, as they say ... It has been dry-cleaned.” — Khigh Dhiegh, as Dr. Yen Lo from the 1962 classic film “The Manchurian Candidate”

If there ever have been two corrupt, amoral birds of a feather (not including hubby Bill), they are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. BHO's self-serving effort to sell her damaged goods (read: Benghazi, “Clinton Cash” influence peddling etc.) to the voters is a quid pro quo arrangement to preserve his disastrous legacy (which Donald Trump will undoubtedly undo). That is the primary reason Mr. Obama is endorsing unindicted liar Hillary. He, like she, cares not one whit about fate of America, only with retaining the presidency as a prize. They are two polarizing anti-American Sal Alinsky radicals playing a scripted political patty-cake. For them, it's all about incompetent (and/or corrupt) rule via acidic cultural destruction (read: social division by race, class, gender, orientation etc.). Make no mistake, the last 7 ½ years has been a progressive hellhole of their collective fascist design. They maintain political power indirectly by distracting the public (read: trivial bathroom issues), and directly by exploiting ancient white guilt and continuing black “victimhood.”

Mr. Obama is likely the worst president ever—up until 2017. A rudderless Western apologist and a hard leftist ideologue. At least America's first black president began as an unknown. An empty emblem that the American people foolishly pinned their idealistic hopes to. Yet, Hillary Clinton is a known quantity—and none of it is good. Indeed, 40 years of scandals and lawbreaking (read: unambiguous Server-gate criminality) rightfully dog—and define—her. Outrageously, Mrs. Clinton still has a real opportunity to take America to even more ruinous, unimaginable depths. It's a binary 50/50 proposition between her and Mr. Trump. No contest in modern times could be more clearly defined. An American cultural heartbeat as significant as JFK's Assassination or Reagan's Revolution. A fork in the road between outsider Trump's Reaganesque optimism versus insider Hillary's Clintonian cynicism.

The current empty suit that resides in the Oval Office pushes an empty skirt with only failure as their shared accomplishment. Likewise, he ran on the superficiality of his race, she on the triviality of her gender. At best, she's been a placeholder as secretary of state, junior senator from New York and 8 years as first lady. Perhaps no American politician has been more bought and paid for (by foreign and domestic interests). She views the presidency as her own personal garage sale—of American influence—to the highest bidder.

Washington Times columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. has aptly pointed out in “The Certifiable Candidate” that Hillary Clinton is a complete phony. He wrote:

“The blue of her eyes is, as with practically everything else about her, a studied fake. She wears blue contact lenses. Her blue eyes look a muddy brown without her cosmetic lenses. As for her “dyed blonde hair,” for all I know she is bald. When [Great Britain's foreign minister] Boris [Johnson] speaks of her putting him in mind of a “sadistic nurse in a mental institution....”

Is Hillary Clinton a real-life political version of Annie Wilkes (a psychotic nurse played to Oscar glory by actress Kathy Bates) in “Misery” (1990)? Well, the misery part of the Obama Administration (of which Hillary was a central part) is certainly true. To continue the analogy, do citizens comprising the languishing body politic really want someone who will double down on Obama's failed policies? Even worse, given her complete absence of character, would any sane person want her immoral, American-hating ministrations bedside for the next 4 or 8 years? Homicidal Annie Wilkes put it simply to her ailing captive, writer Paul Sheldon: “Because if I die, you die.”

The future of America hangs in the balance. So, too, does the freedom-loving Western world. Therefore, the price of electing another empty symbol of hypothetical “progress” is too high.

Donald Trump is the right person to be the next commander-in-chief. With a focused and practical workingman's vigor, he will restore domestic tranquility while rebuilding America's prosperity at home. Indeed, when one is the genuine article, respect is automatically and instinctively given. Thus, as projected light is to shadow, progressives like Hillary and Obama are exposed as the morally bankrupt fakers they are. Inert and useless fluff of unrealized dreams—and true-life nightmares.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Obama's School Fascism

The first entrenched, useless bureaucracy that should be abolished under a potential Trump administration should be the Department of Education. From on high (and in lieu of holding taxpayer money at ransom from the states like crack cocaine), Mr. Obama has decreed that a transgender [one-third of one percent or 0.3% of our nation’s population] student must use any facility—bathroom, locker room or shower—of that person's choice. So that means that a teenager that is physically male can use the private spaces of potentially disrobed females. And what of the rights—and comfort level—of the vast majority of impressionable girls?

Once again, this is big government tyranny of the left promoting the fiction of “inclusion and fairness” while achieving its polar opposite: a blatant anti-biological girl policy. To quote the DOE and DOJ advisory letter: “A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so.” So, the simple solution of allowing a transgender student to, for example, utilize a third option like a individual staff restroom—which incidentally evenly respects all parties—isn't good enough. Though progressives live in a time warp, this is not a modern version of a 60s style Jim Crow discrimination. This is more of Mr. Obama's anti-American radicalism: his fundamental transformation of America. Specifically, this tempest in a teapot is just another excuse for “Christian” Obama to undermine thousands years of Judeo-Christian cultural norms that inform our culture.

Let me be clear: this is not about the individual rights of transgender students. This is about fascist ideologues (read: progressives) promoting Sal Alinsky style conflict: misusing the extensive power of government to force an agenda that expands their own political power. Moreover, this wrongdoing is always done at the expense of freedom. A true-blue U.S. president, Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said: “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” With today's school edict added to his flurry of ultra-constitutional executive orders, what exactly does that make Mr. Obama?

Heretofore, the running of public schools was a local issue managed by individual states. No more, under our statist overlord masquerading as president. Now, Big Brother Obama's lash runs the gamut: Christian bakers can be forced to bake “gay” cakes, and groveling vendors like Target (reading the Obama tea leaves) institutes the “good” policy of dangerous unisex changing rooms. What's next? NSA surveillance of our bedrooms? Put nothing past these authoritarians. For almost eight years, George Orwell has turned in his grave.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

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

Obama's Flint Water Lip Service

After years of the American people (and progressive cronies) drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, it seems only fitting that our modern-day Marie Antoinette president should have to drink from Flint's formerly leaded water supply. (Did the royal taster on Mr. Obama's staff make sure it was filtered before it graced his majesty's lips?) Apparently so, because Mr. Obama gulped it down like the pricey Cristal I imagine is always on tap at the White House when his buddy Jay-Z visits with Beyonce (still undoubtedly wearing her Super Bowl 50 “Black Panther” outfit.) In fact, since Mr. Obama seems to like Flint's water so much perhaps he will authorize his own personal Keystone pipeline to the executive residence in case Jay-Z wants a mixer instead of his own brand, golden-bottled Armand de Brignac champagne.

This careless and coddled snake oil salesman—who habitually (golfs, parties, vacations) with millionaires and billionaires at taxpayer expense—is now pushing water: his 21 century version to impoverished blacks as their slave forebearers were once promised 40 acres and a mule: “I’ve got your back,” Obama laughably claimed, “I will not rest and I’m going to make sure that the leaders at every level of government don’t rest until every drop of water that flows to your homes is safe to drink and safe to cook with and safe to bathe in.” Seriously? When has Mr. Obama ever taken on fellow Democrats for anything? The answer is never.

His better than seven year litany of hollow words are always designed to obscure the repeated fact of incompetence and scandal—of his party and/or his own administration. In this case, Democrats running virtually every level of the city and state of Michigan were responsible for this money-saving scheme. Likewise, the failed oversight by Mr. Obama's EPA, the bureaucratic negligence related to its cover-up. Naturally, the MSM (and Flint residents) singled out the one Republican, Gov. Rick Snyder, for blame. Contrast that to Johnny-come-lately Obama's rock star reception: his do-nothing face time was only met with universal, sycophantic praise. (Exactly when will America finally wake up to Mr. Obama's skin-deep “down with the struggle” rhetoric and empty symbolism? My prediction is also never.)

In actuality, Mr. Obama does little more than loaf around. He, self-described in Politico with “Hawaii laziness,” is finally going to step take charge after almost two full presidential terms? Seriously, what hubris to continue to believe that more of this metaphorical shoe shining will fool all of the people, all of the time. Let me be clear: Mr. Obama isn't interested in the plight of fellow human beings (read: “No Trayvon outcry for Tayshawn”) or environmental safety.

Recall, it's election time for Democrats. After almost eight years that has specifically ruined the prospects of black folks (along with the country), this is Mr. Obama's hat in hand effort to, once again, fleece votes. Indeed, Mr. Obama excels at the superficiality of political theater. He likes the pomp and circumstance of the presidency—the high on the hog living—the shallow surfaces of being an empty suit with a teleprompter. He's just not interested in tough calls, real leadership (think Syrian red lines) or advocating for American interests. Yet, same as fundraising, trolling for votes with a winsome smile and a little water gurgling photo-op for cameras (read: appear to be “doing something”) is right in his wheelhouse. After all, a brief stopover in Flint is a tiny effort to shore up the black vote for November's likely highly contested presidential election. That's what this is really about: a legacy-preserving third term (read: “Obama's 'Hillary' offensive”).

It is not hyperbole that JFK was America's last true Democrat as president. Progressives of today have co-opted the “brand” and actually oppose what Mr. Kennedy stood for. Why draw the line specifically after him? His successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, reportedly said: “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” (Allegedly, this was confided to two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding Mr. Johnson's underlying intentions for his “Great Society” programs.) In this regard, 2014 marked the 50^th anniversary of Johnson's War on Poverty in which 22 trillion has been spent without any appreciable improvement to the poverty rate: per the 2013 U.S. Census Bureau 14.5 percent of Americans are poor—the same as in 1967—three years after Johnson pushed through his socialistic programs.

How was this achieved? All fascists use tragedy to compel change both desirous to them and for them. In LBJ's case, he exploited the Kennedy assassination to ensure widespread government dependence (read: the “carrot”) and its inevitable political endgame: the future election of “Democrats.” Correspondingly, Mr. Obama's “corrosive attitude that exists in our politics” is entirely a product of his and Mrs. Clinton's Sal Alinsky style polarization and class warfare (read: the “stick”).  Either method is designed to gin up minority votes for progressives—even though their policies are detrimental to their duped supporters! Therefore, make no mistake: that's the only reason Flint “counts” to politicians of their ilk—as election day propaganda.

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

Seeing black and white bookends 2015

At the end of any given year—or the beginning of the next—it is a common practice of many to soul-search and reflect on the past. In this preoccupation, Washington Post columnist Lonnae O'Neal is no exception. Her concession—obvious to anyone familiar with her relentless race-based scribbling—is still a real whopper. A person of rare moments of surprising clarity, Ms. O'Neal admits to seeing a world of gradation and layered human interactions in the unrealistic contours, literally and figuratively, of black and white. Therefore, as such, she is a self-confessed unreliable narrator with no business being employed as a de facto journalist in a major news-reporting organization.

As a typical, misguided liberal goody two-shoes, on the surface she seeks to “heal” the racial divide by constantly pointing it out. The disconnect is seen in how it is done: in the most divisive and polarizing manner possible. This creates a deep-seeded hypocrisy of philosophically claiming to “address” society's ills (a “good” deed) while simultaneously making her living sowing the seeds of racial discontent (seen like brush fires across the nation in places like Ferguson, MO, Chicago and Cleveland). Therefore, ironically she has a direct economic incentive not to solve anything, but to “keep the stirring the pot” with a steady stream of racially-charged propaganda.

This is the standard fare of the MSM: two-faced duplicity that parallels all Democrats' lies (à la Mr. Obama) and seeks not to cover them, but to minimize and/or change the subject entirely. It also mirrors both Hillary Clinton's style of falsehoods and her Sal Alinsky-inspired college thesis (“There is only the fight...”) in order to sell newspapers. Specifically, Ms. O'Neal's oversimplified “monotone” victim/victimizer formula usually fixates on some minor, unfortunate incident, for example, between the police and a black minority. Anytime the authority figure is white she promotes the racist “bogeyman:” a fantasy specter hiding around every corner that minorities should fear.

The fact that such an outrageous point of view is given credence in 21^st century America is completely out of touch with the good faith of a country that has elected a black man to the presidency twice. Worse, it completely ignores generations of substantive civil rights gains made since the 1960s and is antithetical to MLK's admonishment to focus on the content of character rather than the superficial difference of skin color; a hang-up more than fifty years later Ms. O'Neal cannot seem to grasp or move beyond in 2015.

As a minister, MLK's advice is grounded in Biblical scripture: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:1-3). Once again, true to form in her latest article, Ms. O'Neal claims victimization (this time for herself) due to unfortunate and vulgar comments she received as negative reactions to her year's labors in the shallow end of race relations. In any case, as a self-proclaimed 'race woman,' it is equally wrong when she has judged others with the broad brush of ethnicity as when she, in turn, has also been pigeonholed by readers for her biology. That is the only issue here that is truly “black and white.”

Collective societal harmony has not been in evidence since Mr. Obama assumed office in 2008. My New Year's resolution for America: a more tolerant, forgiving and constructive 2016 reflecting mutual respect and Dr. King's non-violent code of conduct on all sides. May we see brotherhood through the colors of red, white and blue before any other consideration.

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

Basic Obama unknowns plague presidency, legacy

As “Christians,” Barack and Michelle Obama should easily recognize Matthew 15:18, in which it is written: “But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.” For the Obamas, it seems, honesty comes through various historically odd slips of the tongue that reveal truth despite MSM narratives designed to cover up and obscure.

The controversy starts with what Mr. Obama's “real name” is. At one point during his formative years—an Indonesian childhood infused with the study of the Islamic holy book the Koran—our 44th president took on a step-father's last name. Back then, and later as an undergraduate at Columbia University, he was known as Barry Soetoro. (Ironically, as president, Mr. Obama also has trouble appropriately “naming” things such as calling domestic terrorism “workplace violence;” ISIS as ISSL; terrorism obviously perpetrated by radical Islamic extremists in San Bernardino, as such.)

Specifically, this myopic obtuseness explains Mr. Obama's inflexible, progressive ideology, and reputation for cool, personal aloofness. Likewise, time has made clear his consistently tone-deaf policies and politics that are, by and large, completely out of touch with the American people. (Much like his previously described unorthodox upbringing).

Indeed, this inability to label things what they actually are, speaks to Mr. Obama's delusion that the world should be as he “mandates it” rather than meeting it where it is. Indeed, Mr. Obama's Sal Alinsky brand of divisive, “destroy within” rabble-rousing is the antithesis to JFK's embrace of “being American” as a unifying ideal of Christian brotherhood that overlooks superficial differences that Mr. Obama exploits for personal political gain.

For Mr. Kennedy, we should selflessly aspire to our purer instincts modeled by Jesus Christ's gentle example. Yet, Mr. Obama embodies the opposite. For him, everything is “burn, baby, burn,” a violent upheaval coded by the soft innocuous phrase, the “fundamental transformation of America.” What it really means: tis better to rule in a Democrat-created first world redistributionist, big government Hell (à la socialist Bernie “90% tax rate” Sanders). Hence, the last 7 years of the ignoble Obama Administration is finally laid bare.

However, the enigma at its center—and basic facts related to the man himself—remain a mystery. Fundamental to this dynamic is the Obama “is he, or is he not” this-or-that? For example, beyond his surname, what is Mr. Obama's place of birth? Kenya, Hawaii, somewhere else? In any case, in Denver, Michelle Obama publicly muddied the waters in August of 2008 during her GLBT luncheon speech: “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test for the very point of 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 mistake her husband's birth country? Moreover, would any American generally confuse a home country with somewhere else?

This begs another question: because of his well established connections with foreign lands, is Mr. Obama somehow “A closeted American?” On the other hand, speaking of closets, if the claims of outspoken homosexual Larry Sinclair have merit, is Mr. Obama in the closet of a different kind? While the answer is intimate, is never likely to be known and is not the public's concern, it is a relief to know that the Obamas are in the practice of taking HIV tests. This is the point: after almost two full presidential terms, isn't it amazing that Mr. Obama remains so ill-defined in such basic ways?

Now, we move to the big kahuna: the president's religion. For 20 years, Mr. Obama allegedly sat in the back of the Christian church of anti-American ranting Jeremiah “America's chickens are coming home to roost” Wright who proclaimed from the pulpit “God damn America.” Specifically, in a September 2008 pre-election first term interview with George Stephanopoulous, Mr. Obama said:

“You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith and you’re absolutely right that that has not …”
Stephanopoulos (interrupting): “Your Christian faith.”
Obama: “My Christian faith. Well, what I’m saying …”

Utilizing the above nebulous history as context and fast-forwarding to today, we now learn per Washington Times columnist Tammy Bruce that Mr. Obama's inexplicable foreign policy is being heavily influenced by Koranic prophesy. Hence, the irrational position that America should not put puts on the ground in order to destroy ISIS because that is “what the latter wants,” some apocalyptic battle.

To truly be known, any person should be viewed by their faith-informed actions not their words. By definition, Christians traditionally look to the Holy Bible for guidance and prophesy, not elsewhere. On this basis, the religious question regarding Mr. Obama is more than answered. What remains is what else may also be true of the most polarizing president ever to helm the country.

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

Democrat’s Micky-D’s politics (An analysis of anti-American Progressivism)

There once was an innocent time when children actually clamored for McDonald’s food before the multinational juggernaut of a fast food chain had to advertise the superficial slogan “I’m lovin’ it” to obscure the fact that the food is not of a particularly healthful quality.  That is a precise analogy for today's Democrats and the deleterious effect their anti-Capitalistic policies have on America. 

The very small clown car of four “same well” politicians includes (interchangeably): one shrew, one socialist, one buffoon and one empty suit.  Indeed, all the so-called contenders for the Democratic nomination sing from the same hymnal of “good sounding” vote-pandering appeals designed to woo the unemployed (and part-timers via Obamacare), the stupefied (the low-information voter via MSM) and the socially alienated masses (the Occupy movement and more recently Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD violently rioting “no justice, no peace; hands up, don't shoot” city-burning anarchists) for that Pavlovian lever pull.  (Full disclosure: that 'D' in the voting booth now stands not for Democrat, but for “dupe.”)  For example, which one of the quartet recently said: “Powerful, wealthy special interests here at home have used our government to create, in our own country, an economy that is leaving a majority of our people behind.”  (The answer: failed Maryland governor and former mayor of the racial powder keg city Baltimore, MD.)  Certainly, the ever spunky Mr. O'Malley—a former outspoken advocate of madam's first unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008—could not possibly be referring to his dear friend Hillary Clinton (the former “dead broke and in debt” resident of the White House) who via the Charity-gate corruption scandal has parleyed her high level governmental influence as Obama’s first Secretary of State into the rarified air of the uber-rich: the 100 million dollar club of the huge carbon footprint private jets and gas-guzzling limousines.  She, the “queen of money-grubbing green” (and per the Secret Service, a potty-mouthed “queen of mean”), can afford a blasé, a modern day Marie-Antoinette ‘let-them-eat-cake’ persona, because she’s not one of the 93 million able-bodied, but idle citizens—desperate for gainful, full time employment with or without health insurance—who would scarcely dream of her Grey Poupon lifestyle, let alone pay the rent. 

Even taking a family of four to McDonald’s would be a luxury for the rest us.  What difference, at this point, does it make?  A great deal actually if any one of these progressive keystone cops are put in charge of “the land of the free” going forward.  Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and the other stagehands—place-holders to promote the fiction that the Democratic nomination is a contest rather than a fait accompli—are cut from the same rabble-rousing (“There is only the fight...”) Sal Alinsky mold.  Their ilk foment and prey upon the despair of the masses in order to get elected (as in Hillary’s case in 2016) or reelected (in Obama’s in 2012).  Given the last six years, I have serious doubts that any of them—collectively—could successfully run a child’s lemonade stand.  Besides taxing and regulating the hell out of it, of course.

By contrast, the Republicans are drawing a diverse field of non-professional politician contenders like Fiorina [the private sector]; Carson and Paul [former medical doctors] and one minister (and former TV personality) [Huckabee] as well as a cadre of truly substantive and up-and-coming political leaders [Ted Cruz; Marco Rubio] and the yet undeclared, but accomplished Scott Walker and family dynasty scion, Jeb Bush.  Throw a dart: any one of them would be a vastly superior choice to Hillary.

Progressivism belies a more critical and deeper-seeded issue that warrants a needed cultural discussion.  To my mind that political philosophy is an anti-American pathology infusing the ranks and the leadership of the Democratic party.  As President Ronald Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party.  It left me.”  Democrats have come so far off the boil that one of their most popular and beloved standard-bearers JFK, who at the time of his 1960s presidency advocated pro-business tax cuts (“By removing tax roadblocks to new jobs and new growth”), a strong military and anti-Communism (there would be no throwing of his metaphorical arms around the dictator Fidel Castro in a loving Obama embrace) would be considered, at minimum, a moderate Republican and fiscal conservative.  Specifically, Kennedy expressed his cherished Catholicism in faith-based speeches.  He was staunchly pro-Capitalist: free trade, strong dollar, low taxes and low deficits.  And, to illustrate the cavernous divide between Mr. Kennedy and today’s mainstream Democrats most tellingly, the 35th U.S. president was pro-individual responsibility.  The Party would show Mr. Kennedy the door on the basis of that final position alone.

In an alternative universe can anyone with a straight face imagine Mr. Obama as a Kennedy-Democrat uttering his famously patriotic and selfless words: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for you country?”  Not hardly.  As the last six years clearly demonstrates, Obama’s temperament (“the fundamental transformation of America”) shows absolutely no reverence for the American ideal Kennedy valued.  JFK was a unifier and a stark defender of the United States; Obama is a weak kneed apologist who publicly condemns his own country to the glee, no doubt, of America’s geo-political foes. 

One of my favorite, personal colloquialisms is “just because there’s a MacDonald’s on every corner doesn’t mean it’s [a] good [thing].”  The MSM, everywhere too, continues to slickly promote the very people and policies antithetic to a healthily functioning America.  It is time for rank-and-file Americans to reject the Left’s ‘whack-a-mole’ game of divisive victimhood-politics.  In the mold of a youthful, federal government-slashing version of Reagan, we should elect an outspoken pro-American and fiscal conservative.  Perhaps a strict Constitutionalist like Ted Cruz paired with a hands-on practical reformer like Scott Walker is a team worth clamoring for. 

I’m lovin’ it.

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

Democrats' Orwellian Kabuki Theater

In George Orwell's fictional dystopian classic "1984" political leaders (symbolized by "Big Brother") habitually lie, speak out of both sides of their mouths and intend the polar opposite of what they do say.  For example, in Orwell's totalitarian depiction, the Ministry of Peace actually promotes perpetual war.  Its political purpose clandestinely advocates hardship in order to distract the citizenry from learning the nefarious truth about its ruling elite.  Sound familiar? 

In Obama's America of anti-American ruling progressives its real life equivalent is Democrat identity politics—the promotion of superficial differences of race, the economics of class ("You didn't build that, somebody else made that happen") or gender—as wedge issues to keep the populace stirred up, at each other's throats--and thereby distracted.  It is political cover smoke that masks incompetent ideologues whose job-killing, income redistribution, tax-and-deficit spend policies ignite real fires indiscriminately in small towns like Ferguson, MO and (not incidentally) in Democratically-controlled urban centers like Baltimore, MD, Chicago and Detroit.  Remember, locals who have gainful employment and/or otherwise positively contribute to their communities don't burn their own neighborhoods to the ground. 

Sal Alinsky ("There is only the fight...") progressives like Obama and Hillary Clinton incite the mob mentality.  Ferguson and Baltimore are societal fissures manipulated by Democrats along racial lines, but this pattern holds equally true for the Occupy Wall Street movement which enflamed class warfare.  To this end, laughably, the divisive politics of bold faced lies continues by she who would be our next president.  Mrs. Clinton said: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”  Another divisive, whopper of a distortion by a politician who seeks to lead us in 2016.  Indeed, it is insanity to elect a politician of any stripe who actively deceives the people who elect him or her.    

Democratic leaders facilitate crises and exploit such unfortunate situations like the above to further their anti-American "fundamental transformation of America."  This Orwellian political philosophy specifically benefits them individually via the Party.  That is the point of all of this: for liberals it is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.  Specifically, a cogent example: with 93 million able-bodied Americans marginalized, ignored by labor statistics and unable to find full time employment, progressive policies are a cancer that wrecks the joint at home and abroad (read: The Middle East).  As the world literally burns Mr. Obama golfs, wholly disaffected, partying with and living like the millionaire and billionaire "fat cat" bankers he publicly demonizes.  It is all Kabuki Theater.  And it is long overdue for the American public to wake up from their mainstream media-induced stupor.  

Remember a fundamental political axiom: an unhappy populace votes Democrat (versus Reagan's inspiring vision of the United States as a "shining city on a hill.")  At the time, America's primary adversary, the Soviets, respected Reaganism ("Peace through strength") because "the Gipper" actually meant what he said and said what he meant.  By contrast, Mr. Obama is the anti-Reagan: a paper tiger known seemingly by everyone else but himself.  This declawed kitten draws illusionary red lines in the sand and then initiates a "for show," impotent military strategy.  At present, only 1 in 4 missions actually make an airstrike against a target at a rate per The New York Times,' of only 15 airstrikes a day against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  The U.S. Air Force under Mr. Obama's predecessor George W. Bush launched 800 sorties a day, everyday.  Mr. Obama's latest not-so-excellent adventure in the Middle East is all about his own political optics: appearing to be "tough" and doing "something" so he can absurdly claim that under his leadership: "The United States is the most respected country on earth."  Such a sentiment is the very epitome of the Orwellian.

Ronald Reagan—the real deal as "The Great Communicator"—could school the fork-tongued Mr. Obama on what it is to be a proud American rather than a world-class moral relativist and Western apologist.  Conservatives know that pretty words in teleprompter-read speeches mean nothing without the backup of principle, actions and deeds.  Citizens loyal to American ideal of liberty must see the truth and elect a stalwart champion of the U.S. Constitution despite a heavily biased and sycophantic press that conspires to obscure and ignore continuing Democratic falsehoods.  Double-speak purveyors of "Big Brother" statism—which includes every Democratic presidential candidate—must not be allowed to retain the reins of power in 2016.

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

Hillary breaks silence, offers platitude cake

To quote she who would be president in 2016—and has been skirting press questions for almost a month with a wink and a smile—Hillary Clinton was finally shamed into answering a few of the press' questions by Fox News reporter Ed Henry.  Her imperious, smirking response: “Yeah, maybe when I finish talking to the people here.  How’s that?  I might, I’ll have to ponder it.”  Then, pretending to write on a notepad, she added, “I’ll put it on my list for due consideration.”  In this, Mrs. Clinton finally deigned—under her own terms—to break her self-imposed silence.  This attitude parallels Server-gate (modern day Nixonian document shredding): her destruction of 33,000 emails—half of those created on her private server as Secretary of State—that she now infers is government property.  Indeed, for she who wants to sit in the big chair in the Oval Office, how can the American people objectively get a complete picture of her performance in that previous role with 50 percent of the picture forever obscured? 

Continuing to ignore the shrieking, chest-pounding 300 pound gorilla in the corner, Mrs. Clinton steadfastly refuses to finally address her own dismal record of veracity considering the still unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, the before mentioned Server-gate, and the most recent in a long list of Clintonian scandals, the multi-faceted Charity-gate.  Regarding the latter, she offered vague platitudes: “I am so proud of the foundation.  I'm proud of the work that it has done and is doing… I'll let the American people make their own judgments.”  Shadowed in this Clintonian malfeasance is the fact of 1,100 foreign donors mysteriously not reported by the Clinton Foundation; her and Bill's supposed family charity.  That little nugget comes literally right on the heels of Peter Schweizer's exposé of the Hillary Clinton-Bill Clinton fiscal shell game, "Clinton Cash," of bartering favorable U.S. government treatment through the State Department she headed (her role) to the mostly foreign donors who gave exorbitant, six-figure speaking fees to Bill (his role) or otherwise donated large sums of money to the charity á la George Stephanopoulos.

For any clarity at all, one must look to the Hillary speech the fourth estate has dubbed 'Bonds of Trust' for any indication of where she stands: "From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable." Yet, while she hypocritically pontificates upon broken trust between the black community and the police she completely ignores her own severe lack of honesty and forthrightness when it comes to explaining her own behavior and actions to the American people.

It is interesting dynamic when a politician with her own severe trustworthiness deficit lectures the rest of us on trust: "We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans.  Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society, restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets, between and among neighbors, and even people with whom we disagree politically."  So desperate is she to distract—and point the finger away from her own lack of character—that she, in essence, panders to the violent street mob and further galvanizes a volatile situation by demonizing the cops á la Obama.  Her and Obama's Saul Alinsky-style political smoke screens have a direct correlation to the tear gas in the street: this is what happens when those charged with safeguarding the country use the bully pulpit to foment anti-American sentiment and tear society apart along racial lines.

Apparently Mrs. Clinton, who like her husband before her, is inartfully combining the Clintonian mantra of "say anything to get elected" with the Obama brand of destructive, divisive Democratic politics of "never letting a crisis go to waste" for personal and political gain.  Through her Orwellian words, she claims the intention to unite, but in actually she desires the opposite: to polarize and divide.  She knows all too well that an unhappy populace votes Democrat.  Remember her and Bill's single greatest character flaw from which all their lies, greed and hubris stem: their obsessive self-serving power-seeking.

Her blasé, disingenuous Marie Antoinette 'let-them-eat-cake' persona demonstrates that she—who seeks to lead the rest of us—owes nothing.  In this, her silence bellows stentorian that she is unfit to be the next president of the United States.

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

In Hillary’s Orwellian circle of trust

To quote she who would be president in 2016, in a speech the press has dubbed 'Bonds of Trust:' "From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable." Yet, while she hypocritically pontificates upon broken trust between the black community and the police she completely ignores her own severe lack of honesty and forthrightness when it comes to explaining her own behavior and actions to the American people.

Ignoring the shrieking, chest-pounding 300 pound gorilla in the corner, Mrs. Clinton refuses to finally address her own dismal record of veracity considering the still unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, Server-gate (modern day Nixonian document shredding) and the most recent in a long list of Clintonian scandals, the multi-faceted Charity-gate.  This week's latest revelation of Clintonian malfeasance includes 1,100 foreign donors who were mysteriously not reported by the Clinton Foundation; her and Bill's supposed family charity.  That little nugget comes literally right on the heels of Peter Schweizer's expose of the Hillary Clinton-Bill Clinton fiscal shell game, "Clinton Cash," of bartering favorable U.S. government treatment through the State Department she headed (her role) to the mostly foreign donors who gave exorbitant, six-figure speaking fees to Bill (his role) or otherwise donated large sums of money to the charity.

It is interesting dynamic when a politician with her own severe trustworthiness deficit lectures the rest of us on trust: "We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans. Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society, restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets, between and among neighbors, and even people with whom we disagree politically."  So desperate is she to distract—and point the finger away from her own lack of character—that she, in essence, panders to the violent street mob and further galvanizes a volatile situation by demonizing the cops a la Obama.  Her and Obama's Saul Alinsky-style political smoke screens have a direct correlation to the tear gas in the street: this is what happens when those charged with safeguarding the country use the bully pulpit to foment anti-American sentiment and tear society apart along racial lines.

Apparently Mrs. Clinton, who like her husband before her, is inartfully combining the Clintonian mantra of "say anything to get elected" with the Obama brand of destructive, divisive Democratic politics of "never letting a crisis go to waste" for personal and political gain.  Through her Orwellian words, she claims the intention to unite, but in actually she desires the opposite: to polarize and divide.  She knows all too well that an unhappy populace votes Democrat.  Remember her and Bill's single greatest character flaw from which all their lies, greed and hubris stem: their obsessive self-serving power-seeking.

The first one strapped with the body cameras she now advocates should be Mrs. Clinton herself.  So the rest of us can monitor her.  A lie detector should closely follow.  If she can't pass that test then she has no business being the next president of the United States.

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

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