Blaming Others for Dastardly Deeds

Capitol Hill displays 100 luminaries in Statuary Hall: two donated from every state in the nation. Per The Washington Times, more than 25 of these silent sentinels—Confederate politicians and/or soldiers; others merely slaveholders or segregationists—from a bygone era have come under public assault by polarizing progressives. Notably, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently said:

“There is no room for celebrating the violent bigotry of the men of the Confederacy in the hallowed halls of the United States Capitol or in places of honor across the country.”

Recall, Ms. Pelosi is a 30-year veteran of the House of Representatives. Has she forgotten she was in charge of that institution not so long ago? As the 52nd Speaker of the House, why didn't she have the “offensive” Confederate figures populating her workplace removed? Wasn't four years—from January 4, 2007 to January 3, 2011—enough time to purge the chamber of her “undesirables”?

Correspondingly, Democrats had total control of the U.S. Senate for four months. A 60-member filibuster proof majority from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. For context, in that small window there was ample time for them to pass Obamacare. Yet, on this matter, why were Democrats as mute and inactive then as the statues they now so vehemently object to?

A shame unmentioned by anyone—but known by everyone—is an open historical secret. Ms. Pelosi's violent bigots were her own political forebearers: antebellum Democrats. If those disreputable Southerners were not pro-slavery, why did they start the Civil War? Did they not also create the Ku Klux Klan to resist liberating Republicans, and intimidate their supporters? Furthermore, weren't chastened Democrats still managing things on the ground after the Reconstruction in 1877? Did they not establish segregationist Jim Crow laws (as antithetical to Republicans as slavery) that finally went out of favor at the beginning of the civil rights movement of 1950?

Certainly a cruel record they would like the informed to forget. Fortunately, conservatives—aptly represented by the GOP's symbol of the elephant—have long memories. What's understood is that liberals, regardless of the passage of time, have always been rabble-rousing troublemakers. Specifically, as they evaluate every circumstance through the superficial prism of race—aren't they as identity obsessed, and polarizing, as their political ancestors?

Each generation presents a clear and unmistakable threat to traditional American values. Therefore, in function, obstructionist Democrats (read: anti-Trump proponents) are simply the latest version of anti-Union Confederates. As an example, wasn't West Virginia Sen. Robert C. Byrd—known as the “Exalted Cyclops” of the KKK—also a lifelong Democrat? In that regard, it's interesting to note that Ms. Pelosi worked side by side with this former Klansman for 23 years. Thus, for decades, she was apparently untroubled by Mr. Byrd's outspoken embodiment of racial prejudice. Why then should inanimate Confederate statues now provoke discomfort for her?

What hasn't bothered her in more than a quarter of a century suddenly does so on August 17, 2017 when she proclaimed:

“The Confederate statues in the halls of Congress have always been reprehensible. If Republicans are serious about rejecting white supremacy, I call upon Speaker Ryan to join Democrats to remove the Confederate statues from the Capitol immediately.”

So, solely on her say-so—via Democratic voodoo (one imagines some magical form of osmosis she has been immune to during her lengthy Congressional career)—Republicans have secretly been infected by pro-KKK attitudes? Specifically, Republicans should be condemned for not doing what she never has—and brought up for the first time last week? This Democratic leader has certainly mastered the art of hypocrisy!

In truth, her ridiculous assertion contradicts the GOP's founding principle of abolitionism! From its inception in 1854, Republicans have repeatedly championed equal rights for all. Thus, only dupes would heed this Johnny-come-lately to anti-Confederacy sentiment. Likewise, Ms. Pelosi's hollow claim to value honor is yet another polarizing stunt. It's neither Republicans nor Confederate statues that's contemptible here!

In light of all their dreadful history, it's easy to see why progressives will never acknowledge these facts. As with their antecedents forming the KKK, today's Democrats encourage their lawless followers to riot and terrorize. Once again, Pelosi's fiery rhetoric—based upon utter falsehoods—foments insurgency:

“I am deeply alarmed by the hateful and dangerous nature of the event, its timing so soon after the horrors in Charlottesville, and the serious questions over whether the National Park Service is at all equipped to ensure public safety during a white supremacist rally.”

Pelosi's “dangerous” assembly is a multicultural free speech rally by Patriot Prayer next Saturday at San Francisco's Crissy Field. Since when is a gathering to express mainstream American tolerance something “hateful”?

In any case, what Democrats care about here is cleansing the American landscape of physical mementos of their vile political past. Hence, their Confederate counterparts must go. In practice, when that occurs, progressives ensure the innocent right wing is blamed for it; as well as any associated street violence (perpetrated by their fascist thugs).

With the abetting MSM media in tow, Democrats' propaganda is constantly reinforced. Their message is wrongly perceived by the low-information citizen as gospel. To subsist, responsibility-phobic Democrats habitually scapegoat others (read: “Trump Derangement Syndrome”). Thus, liberals' latest fixation on imaginary Confederate ghosts is yet another subject-changing distraction from their own leftist tyranny.

In the final analysis, how devious is Nancy Pelosi's strategy: demonizing the defenseless dead while simultaneously defaming the reputations of Republicans as de facto 21^st century collaborators! Yet, her wickedly revisionist narrative fails to hide the timeless cultural sins of her corrupt political party.

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

SF Pays Illegal To Stay

A threatened lawsuit from illegal Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno, 33, for “wrongful arrest” has compelled local officials to pay him $190,000! This appalling decision gives the words of acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas D. Homan, deeper resonance:

“Sanctuary cities, in my opinion, are un-American. … They're a sanctuary city, they're proud of it.”

Ah, San Francisco, represented by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Recall, her stomping grounds were made infamous by the July 1, 2015 slaying of 32-year-old Kate Steinle. Walking along Pier 14 with her father, Ms. Steinle was struck in the back by a ricocheting bullet from a stolen gun in the hands of an illegal, Juan Francisco López-Sánchez: a felon with 7 convictions and 5 deportations. López-Sánchez had been in the custody of the San Francisco Sheriff on drug charges when ICE issued a detainer for him. Instead of turning him over as federal law demanded, this convicted criminal was set free—and an innocent lost her life.

Over two years later, things have evolved from the tragic to the farcical.

Today, San Francisco is apparently so “proud” of their ongoing sanctuary status, they're paying Señor Figueroa-Zarceno six figures for not living up to their federal law-violating “principles”! For context, back in December 2015, Figueroa-Zarceno informed police about his stolen vehicle. That caused them to become aware of his DUI conviction and an order for deportation to his home country of El Salvador. Reporting the theft of his vehicle ironically led to his arrest and two month incarceration. Yet, given San Francisco’s sanctuary policies, this outcome was illegal. Per the 1989 “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance (also known as the Sanctuary Ordinance):

“City employees [are prohibited] from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal immigration law.”

Hence, for complying with federal law—that importantly supersedes local statutes—San Francisco obliged itself to pay Figueroa-Zarceno from the taxpayer till. What's more absurd: that this two-faced “victim” claims “what happened to [him] was very unfair and it was an injustice,” or cutting him a large government check for his “inconvenience”? Indeed, this outrageous settlement illustrates the schizophrenic nature of sanctuary policies for law enforcement. Which do they honor? The conflicting city policy or the federal mandate? Siding with the former means releasing often violent offenders or risking similar payouts.

Hypocritical Democrats falsely justify sanctuary cities by advocating the straw man argument of “tolerance and multiculturalism”. In truth, Democrats promote these lawless enclaves—populated by illegals and criminals—precisely because these same illegitimate groups overwhelmingly support them politically! As a case and point, is California Political Review's “Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote”. Tellingly, 80% of noncitizens back Democrats. Therefore, progressives shield these lawbreaking foreigners because their political prospects are tied to them.

For this safely ensconced ruling elite, what do they care about perpetuating a dangerous environment? Another Democratic-run urban jungle—like America's murder capital, Chicago—leaps to mind. Former Obama flunky Rahm Emanuel parrots, “We want you to come to Chicago if you believe in the American dream.” What of the unrealized dreams of the 423 fatalities—recorded there in 2017, so far—Mister Mayor? What of this unending nightmare Democrats universally condone, and encourage? Undocumented aliens hide in plain sight while citizens cower from shadowy, un-American threats to life and limb.

This discrepancy is most clearly seen in San Francisco's disbursement of money to “injured” parties. While illegal Figueroa-Zarceno will be quickly paid for his trouble, last January U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero dismissed the wrongful death suit filed against San Francisco, and then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, by Kate Steinle's family. (The lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management—the source of the López-Sánchez's stolen firearm from an agent's car—is proceeding.) In essence, city leaders have negated a citizen's constitutional rights, Kate's, while championing the “rights” of a foreign squatter? What an Orwellian result! In the final analysis, which group demonstrates more contempt for America? Liberals who run San Francisco or illegals who inhabit it?

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

Journalist, Not Biased Hack

“Objectivity is dead, and I’m okay with it.” – Lewis Wallace, former “Marketplace” reporter

The above is the title of his essay published on the website, Medium. As this attitude negates Wallace's “impartial” role as a journalist, he was ultimately terminated by his employer.

Recall, the purpose of journalism is to convey current events impartially with facts. Any unbound person—unwilling to exercise fact-based dispassion—can't be a legitimate journalist. Instead, that's a de facto activist: a propagandist with a press pass.

Facts are essential, intractable things. They remain elemental to authentic journalism. Specifically, facts anchor news stories to reality. When correctly utilized, they greatly aid journalistic truth-telling. 'Just the facts, ma'am'—for good reason.

Journalism's traditional tenets don't impede anyone with skill from getting their writerly point across. Wallace finds himself in the unemployment line solely for willfully violating a professional taboo. Demonstrating the rank intolerance he rails against, he writes:

“We need to admit that those who oppose free speech, diversity and kindergarten level fairness are our enemies”.

How is it not fascism to demonize others simply for holding a different political perspective? Is it not hypocritical, and childish, to condemn another in the name of Wallace's militant “fairness”? To paraphrase Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, a bad judge to the law is equivalent to the journalist disregarding objectivity. They are incongruent and cannot coexist in the same sphere.

Without facts, journalism rapidly degrades into valueless, gelatinous goo. Reporting becomes untrustworthy and indistinguishable from fiction. Hence, the Orwellian specter of today's “fake news”. The false is peddled as true: witness the absurd claim of Trump's “threat to invade Mexico”. (He didn't, per CNN he actually offered help.) This Associated Press narrative was mindlessly disseminated far and wide as truth. Is this American journalism or an old fashioned telephone game from Mr. Wallace's kindergarten class?

Beyond the editorial page, neutrality remains a job requirement. Lewis Wallace confused a First Amendment right of self-expression with his professional duty. His employer acted appropriately because he wouldn't (read: another pesky fact for this “victim” to misconstrue and grouse about).

As with everything he advocates, Wallace only has himself to blame. This is the fallout of competing interests—and the healthy expression of a difference of opinion.

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

No Home for Drunk Illegal

“We are devastated. My children are crying, but we know there's nothing more we can do.” – “victim” Giovani Jimenez of Fredericksburg, VA

Like her “devastated” hubby—Virginia squatter Wendy Uruchi Contreras, 33—is illegal. Apparently, this menace can't go from point 'A' to point 'B' without violating numerous American laws. For her misdeeds, this sauced Spaniard—ironically an immigrant rights activist for CASA—inadvertently turned the spotlight of hypocrisy on herself. Thus, her own undocumented status was exposed. She was arrested last year, pleaded guilty to DUI, and is subsequently being held in custody. Today, her deportation is imminent. Sorry Charlie: too bad, so sad! Welcome to Trump's America.

Is it any wonder why this lawbreaker couldn't get the laws of this land to suddenly work for her? After an overlong six-month process (including denied last-ditch appeals), Uruchi is to be repatriated to Madrid forthwith. (Symbolically, an appropriate capper to Donald Trump's rapid-fire first week as a newly minted law and order president. Happily, like Ronald Reagan, but on steroids!)

Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth in casa de Uruchi-Jimenez. One feels a measure of sympathy for their American-born children, Alex, 13, and Lucia, 7. Yet, overriding this consideration is the fact that both parents intentionally flouted our legal immigration process. The couple then chose to procreate. A ripple effect of poor choices, ultimately resulting in this family's geographic dissolution. Still, the cause—and the fault—remains squarely with them.

Knee-jerk liberals make the contrived argument that America's immigration laws are draconian: “anti-family unity” or somehow contrary to the “best interests of children”. Well, what if this lead-footed lush had killed someone else's child? Such an act would permanently—and irrevocably—end another person's God-given right to exist; shattering that family's unity. What of the rights of law-abiding citizens—our innocents and their loved ones?

For eight years, golfing ex-president Obama turned a blind eye. Even worse, he abetted the rising body count (exemplified by record-breaking Chicago: the nation's murder capitol for five years of his presidency). A cause of this disgrace was highlighted in Mr. Trump's August 2016 speech in Phoenix:

“Since 2013 alone, the Obama administration has allowed 300,000 criminal aliens to return back into United States communities. These are individuals encountered or identified by ICE, but who were not detained or processed for deportation because it wouldn’t have been politically correct.”

So much for longstanding progressive “sympathy” for actual victims of illegals' crimes like Kate Steinle. Cry baby ideologues make subject-changing excuses for them by demonizing the rest of us as “intolerant”. Therefore, these “do-gooders”—philosophically twisted like pretzels around their own axles—are not to be believed, or trusted. For they are destructive harbingers of leftist chaos: advocating the twin scourges of open borders and illegals' illusory rights. Indeed, the characteristic defining the polarized Obama years was their subversive efforts to aid the torrent of violence, drugs and lawlessness.

Our democratically-created laws are fair. They have one purpose: to preserve life. Within our sovereign boundaries, they protect men, women—and most of all—children. The heartbreaking number murdered at the hands of this invading underclass is unknown.

In 2002, Uruchi arrived on a 90-day visa waiver program. So, she's already been a de facto criminal for fifteen years. Moreover, by what right did this speeding drunkard endanger public safety in 2016? Someone with neither legal standing nor moral fiber has no automatic right to reside in our country. Naturally, her brood is exempt from her wrongdoing. They can return here when they reach maturity. As adults and legal citizens, America will graciously extend them the welcome mat.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

2016: An Anti-Women Year?

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Liberal Losers Champion Hypocrisy

“It’s understandable liberals presumed the Rockettes were going to be forced to do something with which they were opposed, because that’s what the liberal establishment [under Obama] has been doing to everyone else.” – Tammy Bruce, author, columnist and radio talk show host

When a handful of Rockettes declined to kick up their heels at Donald Trump's upcoming inauguration—a voluntary gig—liberals wrongly assumed the dancers' employer was “forcing them” to perform against their will. Where was a similar outcry when Christian bakers were compelled by the State to produce cakes for gay weddings? Further, why were libs as silent as church mice when the big government juggernaut that is ObamaCare compelled Catholic nuns to pay for useless birth control? (These Little Sisters of the Poor successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for “protection” from Obama's fascism.) For the last eight years, why has progressive “outrage” been so blatantly selective?

Wasn't the central theme of all civil rights movements—of women, blacks and gays—based upon the intrinsic idea of equal treatment for all? Why is it that today's progressives have inverted this meaning? Why do they seek “special” rights only for their fellow travelers (like one “graceless” Rockette who stated on Instagram that President-elect Trump “stands for everything we're against”)?

Democrats' only true agenda is self-serving power-seeking. Therefore, they distort and exploit a trivial circumstance for their own political gain. What else explains their full-throated lip service to griping, anti-Trump dupes who also constitute their future voting blocs? Ironically, a few Rockettes popping off behind the scenes has inadvertently made center stage leftist hypocrisy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Pope Francis: more politician than pontiff

In traditional Catholic parlance, the Latin monogram IHS means Iesus Hominum Salvator or “Jesus Savior of Mankind.” But in the 21 century pop culture world—where empty-headed Kim Kardashian is inexplicably famous (“The pope is dope”) and an aloof, talk show-junkie U.S. president is “too cool” to respect Constitutional limits—to this oddball triumvirate we add pope-turned-politician Francis. As with Mr. Obama's ever-intrusive interference, likewise for Francis, apparently focus on religion and spiritual matters are not enough. For him, IHS translates into: 'I'm Hypocritical, Seriously.' Indeed, has any pope in modern times been so agenda-driven or inserted himself so readily into the election of a future American president?

Hours after praying for Mexican migrants who died trying to reach the United States illegally, the pope took the opportunity to bring attention to his pro-illegal alien stance in violation of U.S. secular law by answering a question related to Donald Trump's promised U.S. border wall (paid for by Mexico). His response:

“A person who thinks only about building walls — wherever they may be — and not building bridges, is not Christian.” Francis added, “I’d just say that this man is not Christian if he said it this way.”

That's quite an interesting position. So anybody who wants to build border walls “is not Christian,” is that it? How about someone already living safely ensconced behind them? Naturally, I refer to the 39-foot walled city, the Vatican. Granted the fortifications were there well before March 13, 2013 when this 266 pope of the Roman Catholic Church came to power. However, if he's serious on this subject why hasn't he already done a Reaganesque “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”?

Living in Europe, surely this “intercessor for God” is well aware of the 60 million displaced migrants literally flooding into Europe from the war-torn Middle East. Of course, I jest about the need to remove walls (or prevent them like “bridge-building” Pope Francis). Yet, as he is the Holy Father, what's to stop him from dismissing the Swiss guard and throwing open the gates to the downtrodden? (Imagine how many thousands the thick, protective walls of the Vatican could accommodate!)

My point: he's not serious, beyond the lip service of saying and doing the things that cast the Catholic Church in a positive light. Living in a palatial fortress that is literally its own country, he's a limousine liberal chauffeured instead in a Fiat 500L. A superficial demonstration of his “regular guy” status. Importantly, recognize the equivalent Obama-like hypocrisy, Francis's version of “teachable moment” political optics: publicly scolding another with migrant advice he is loath to personally practice. Specifically, Pope Francis's outspoken MSM-reported condemnation of the l'enfant terrible political phenomenon that is Donald Trump is intended (as everything he does) to constantly burnish the Church's historically dubious reputation in the wider court of public opinion. To reference Scripture, Mark 12:17: “And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Simply put, too much politician's gamesmanship—not enough pope.

Up until this latest dust-up, crossing swords with Republican front-runner Donald Trump, Pope Francis had been coasting with Obama 2008-like popularity and “newness.” To relate his position to Obama's in today's America, the honeymoon is officially over. All thanks to the uncensored buzz saw who may very well be the next president of the United States.

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

Justice Sotomayor: laws, not wages for the 'little people'

After almost 7 years of the often equally diabolical and hapless Obama Administration, it is easy to detect the overpowering scent of far-left hypocrisy emanating from progressives in Washington. First, a lawless, ultra-Constitutional president who consistently issues overreaching proclamations by executive fiat. Now, a rogue Supreme Court has likewise overstepped its bounds by imposing law from the bench.  In so doing, the high court has completely usurped Congress' constitutionally-defined role as legislator instead of confining itself to its proprietary domain of “interpreting” already written law.  Naturally, I coyly refer to the recently determined gay marriage debate between the thousands of years-old traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage (based upon First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religious expression) versus the gerrymandered manipulation of the equal protection clause (intended only to prevent discrimination not proactively mandate “new” law).  Apparently, one of the justices in particular, Sonia Sotomayor—perhaps based upon Mr. Obama's longstanding nihilistic example—feels especially entitled to also “make up the rules” as she goes along.

Specifically, Ms. Sotomayor has parlayed her lofty position on the Supreme Court to attract a collection of serfs at her whim as maids, servants, cooks, butlers and chauffeurs in technical violation, this time, of long established U.S. minimum wage labor laws.  Based upon her actions, perhaps Ms. Sotomayor should be rightly viewed as the Leona Helmsey of the court.  Just insert the word “laws” for “taxes” and all of the rest of us 'little people' know exactly where we stand.  In this regard, one wonders if her judicial robes conceal not a gavel, but a queen's scepter.  Hopefully, the unpaid lady's maid who likely dresses Ms. Sotomayor will someday make some bucks with a tell-all book.

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