Slut-Shaming A U.S. President

With the #MeToo movement in full flight, why hasn't anyone in the legacy media finally held former U.S. president Bill Clinton to account for his lifetime of boorish behavior? What of his string of adulterous affairs with numerous accusers—even within the Oval Office? What of Juanita Broaddrick's 40-year-old allegation of rape? Is it fair for Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen to slut-shame the sitting U.S. president: while giving worse behaved Bubba a complete pass? For one thing, Mr. Clinton's juvenile high jinks—among them, the Lewinsky affair: a national scandal that virtually brought the country to a standstill, and led to Bill's impeachment—happened while he was in office. How is that comparable to a porn star's allegation of a consensual affair with Donald Trump, then a private citizen, in 2006?

Where is this partisan's “honesty, dignity and rectitude”? In reality, Mr. Cohen engages in the yellowiest journalism by using language better suited to the gutter: “But Trump himself is a slut. He is a liar and a moral harlot who revels in irresponsibility and bad-boy behavior.” To paraphrase the Bible, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7). That would be good advice for the Post's holier than thou columnist to heed: especially given his own sexism directed at a younger, female subordinate in the workplace. As reported in June of 1998 by the Washingtonian's Harry Jaffe in “Cohen Gets Kid-Gloves Treatment in Harassment Case”:

“Among the allegations reported to [deputy managing editor Milton] Coleman: Cohen asked [Devon] Spurgeon to come into his office and close the door, then queried her about her generation's view of oral sex. Also at issue: a conversation where Cohen said it's too bad Bill Clinton is the only one who can grope in his office and get away with it. He also is said to have intimidated her with references to his connections with top Post editors, such as Tom Wilkinson, who can hire and fire.”

How is it not beyond creepy for a then 57-year-old man to question a then 23-year-old editorial aide about sexual mores? At the time, the Post's response was simply to move his office to a different floor. As for curbing potential misdeeds, that's about as effective as moving an accused pedophile priest to a new perish. Indeed, all these years later, where's Richard Cohen's, or The Washington Post's, integrity and transparency regarding these events? As of now, this stone thrower is still employed there. In fact, sanctioned for decades to point fingers at others while ignoring his own less than chivalrous conduct. (As was typical in the Clinton era of “bimbo eruptions,” the wagons were circled and the young woman in question was blamed.) Unfortunately, his journalistic old boy's club is still stuck in Clintonian amber. Neither Clinton nor Cohen have yet received their deserved comeuppance in 2018.

Upon reflection, how was the lurid, sex scandal-plagued Clinton era not a shadowy reflection of recently exposed Hollywood sex scandals (read: Clinton friend and donor Harvey Weinstein), and the #MeToo movement? In both cases, didn't prominent Democrats misuse their lofty positions to exploit underlings for sexual favors? Specifically, when Bubba chased Monica around the resolute desk in the Oval Office, wasn't Bill's bad-boy behavior (with her and others) equivalent to the adulterous antics of a bathrobed Harvey? Rightly, today's press has excoriated the disgraced movie mogul Yet, Bill's extramarital affair with then 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky is still treated with kid gloves. Ironically, his still traumatized former paramour, now 44, couldn't bring herself to hold the Clintons responsible in her candid March 2018 Vanity Fair article: he for his arguably predatory behavior; she for calling Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony toon”. Shouldn't the Clintons be held to the same standard of conduct that the media is rabidly trying to hold The Donald to?

The hard left media continuing to protect the coddled Clintons conveys the message that questionable actions, or words, have no bearing on character or a president's ability to lead the nation. And despite the sea change regarding sexual harassment, Bill and Hillary have survived their various imbroglios, haven't they? So, it stands to reason that President Trump will also survive the supposed peccadilloes of his past. Before applying such blatant double standards to U.S. presidents, Democratic surrogates of the biased MSM need to take a long look in a mirror. Not to do so shows the truth of what they are: untrustworthy mudslingers of salacious leftist propaganda.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Paul Ryan: Nicest Swamp Creature

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In other words, due to one's high status that person can claim anything without fear of being challenged by those who know less. So it is with Washington Times columnist Richard W. Rahn's muddled analysis of Paul Ryan (R-WI), an 18-year veteran of the Washington bog. Given this writer's flowery assertions, however, he sounds like the newly appointed cheerleader of the Republican excuses brigade! To that end, his doe-eyed opening sentence speaks volumes:

“It is tough to play hardball with your friends.”

Has Congress metastasized into a millionaires' social club? Are Mr. Ryan's fellow representatives supposed to be playboys for him to pal around with? If that's now the prevailing mind-set on Capitol Hill, it certainly explains a lot! Specifically, Gallup's record low approval rating for Congress in 2017: a measly 16%. And is that statistic any surprise given their collective failure to repeal Obamacare—after seven years of broken GOP promises? Thus, is it reasonable to sing Paul Ryan's praises as he's one of the primary figures responsible for the ongoing legislative morass?

That's not Pauly's fault, says Rahn. The real trouble is he's just so darn agreeable! Is affability suddenly a personality flaw in politics, or in the business of governance? If so, will someone send Mr. Ryan “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie? Recall, in the natural world that honey's sweetness attracts many more flies than vinegar; so it is with human nature. In fact, didn't President Ronald Reagan epitomize a sunny disposition—and didn't that trait make him more effective as a leader, not less so?

Naturally, the reality of Speaker Ryan's inherent inability to lead is quickly glossed over:

“[He is] not particularly good at managing a large number [read: 240 of 435; one vacancy] of independently-minded people.”

For his unsuccessful cat wrangling of only his party (and half of the legislature) a premium is earned: a $223,500 annual salary. That's a whopping $49,500 more than the House's rank and file. (By comparison, President Trump runs the entire executive branch for $400,000 a year, per Title 3 of the U.S. Code; donating his whole salary, save one dollar, to charity.) Mr. Ryan has not followed suit—and given his lack of positive results—perhaps he should.

But wait, Rahn claims, Mr. Ryan real aptitude is as a “policy wonk”. If that's so, why did he capitulate to the Democrats' two trillion dollar debt-busting budget rather than opposing it? Likewise, is he “highly accomplished” for losing control of the budgetary schedule as Mr. Rahn admits? For context, when Speaker Ryan assumed his leadership role on October 29, 2015, the national debt was $18,152,590,112,385.69. As of this writing, it has increased to $20,173,505,864,062.25. After almost two years, why are all of the economic indicators under his “expert” tutelage still going in the wrong direction?

Beyond the escalating debt, proof is seen in the pitiful pre-Trump 2% GDP. By those measures alone, Mr. Ryan would have been fired in the private sector long ago. After all, as Speaker he determines the agenda; same as his chamber controls the nation's purse strings. And despite his hollow-sounding protestations about not initially wanting the post, the fact remains that he took it. In this way, he seems to cultivate a regular guy “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” persona. Still, the fact that Mr. Rahn doesn't see through this slick veneer is troubling. It means his favorable depiction of Mr. Ryan is untrustworthy. As that is the case, perhaps a fictional one can illuminate his real-life subject better:

“Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.” – Dr. Jeffrey Pelt, National Security Adviser, played by Richard Jordan in “The Hunt for Red October” (1990)

Now that sounds like a realistic baseline with which to evaluate any longtime D.C. insider. Yet, unlike Dr. Pelt, one would never expect Paul “not ready” Ryan to be so candid about his own history of mealy-mouthed capriciousness regarding his faux support of President Trump.

Hence, in the Trump era, the American electorate has had their fill of nice guy RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who embrace the status quo by subverting “M.A.G.A.” policies. By his record and his actions, that's who Paul Ryan really is. That's also precisely why our results-driven president cut a three-month extension with the Democrats (for government funding, and Hurricane Harvey relief). And why not? When has that fresh-faced facade of the do-nothing Republican establishment ever been a friend to him? Indeed, championing such incompetence demonstrates a profound obliviousness to modern-day political dysfunction—that even a clear-eyed low-information voter can see.

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  

Hillary Clinton: Democrats' Worst “Nixon”

Two-faced Hillary Clinton is a Washington insider, a coddled elitist who has always ignored “the rules.” Whether it's law, ethics, morality and truth, nothing is an impediment to her own interests and presidential ambitions. History has repeated demonstrated that this habitual liar will say, do and promise anything—and pathologically deny everything—to return to the White House. On the eve of the 2016 presidential election, the fix is in in ways Richard “Watergate” Nixon could not imagine.

There's never been proof that Mr. Nixon was behind the DNC break in or burglary, but there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton ordered various unsecured “Clintonmail.com” private computer servers. Her corrupt purpose: to hide her pay for play influence peddling at the State Department in exchange for donations to the 2 billion dollar slush fund that is her and Bill's “charitable” Clinton Family Foundation. That self-serving corruption violates Title 18 U.S. Code Section 201 that carries with it a measly two years in prison.

Indeed, now exonerated former governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) and his wife were prosecuted for receiving “gifts from political friends.” Even though there was no evidence of Clintonesque favors granted, when it comes to Republicans even a whiff of wrongdoing is ruinous. Yet, blatant lawbreaking (read: Server-gate) and quid pro quo politics (read: Charity-gate) are standard operating procedures for the Clintons. Who else has gotten away with making a 153 million in six figure “speeches” for campaign contributors? Is it not wrong that more than half of non-government people who met with Mrs. Clinton at the State Department were Foundation donors? One could fill the Encyclopaedia Britannica with the Clintons' evasions and lies.

Naturally, money-grubbing Hillary didn't want her soft “extortion” exposed to government oversight (or the American electorate). Yet, unauthorized storing and transmitting classified American secrets—which Mrs. Clinton did for personal convenience—is treason. Her crimes make Mr. Nixon's wrongdoing laughably quaint by comparison. Specifically, Mrs. Clinton has violated Title 18 U.S. Code Section 793. As 110 emails were found, that's ten years for each separate offense or 1,100 years in the slammer. That's over a millennium in the big house—not more years in the White House.

The peak of this Mount Everest of Clintonian corruption is the reality the Hillary's been hacked at least five times by bad actors (technically “unknown parties”). This reality was leaked to Bret Baier of Fox News by patriotic underlings in the FBI disgusted with their wishy-washy weasel of a Director James Comey. From the FBI to the DOJ to Obama's White House, all have repeatedly ignored—and abetted—clear criminality: every political calculation is designed to keep corrupt Democrats in power at grave detriment to the country.

At least Richard Nixon had the decency to resign rather than do further damage. He's small potatoes compared to Hillary Clinton. With her, America gets a shameless 21^st century Benedict Arnold: a person absolutely unfit for local dogcatcher let alone the next U.S. president.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Weiner's Zipper-gate Is Clinton Karma

What is it with the toxic intersection of Bill and Hillary Clinton scandals, sex and interns?

Back in the '90s, the most famous instance was Bill's adulterous affair with then 22-year-old intern Monica Lewinsky. His lies led to charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. That scandal resulted in impeachment, but an abetting Democrat-controlled Senate saved Slick Willie.

Today, it's murky characters in crooked Hillary's orbit: her Girl Friday Huma Abedin (originally Hillary's intern, now a top aide) and Huma's estranged hubby, disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Apparently, a tangential child pornography FBI investigation into super-freak (sexting; selfie sending) Mr. Weiner has uncovered Abedin's 650,000 previously unknown emails on a shared computer. Are Hillary Clinton's 48,000 deleted emails and/or more classified information (read: Server-gate) among them? That's anyone's guess (including Abedin's who reportedly told intimates she has no idea how they got there) and the results, if any, won't be known until well after Election Day.

At least Bill Clinton got caught in flagrante delicto when he was already in office. While his wife desperately claws at the Oval Office door, Hillary Clinton's corruption precedes her—and would doggedly follow her into the presidency. Imagine what greater influence she could peddle—to political sycophants and foreign powers alike—and what impressionable interns he could covet! The mind boggles at such nightmarish scenarios.

If elected, Hillary's scandals and lawbreaking are the perfect storm to sink our currently badly floundering country. In addition to these ever-present clouds of suspicion, this habitual liar will deliver the economic morass and racial polarization of an Obama third term. America needs neither the domestic malaise nor the international humiliation of another weak progressive Democrat.

It's reasonable to infer that Huma Weiner (a.k.a. Abedin) is at the nexus of corrupt (Hillary) Clinton everything. For more than three years of Mrs. Clinton's term as Secretary of State Abedin was her deputy chief of staff. Then Huma resigned from that formal role becoming a “special government employee” (and how!) taking simultaneous paying gigs for the “charitable” Clinton Foundation, and international consulting firm Teneo Holdings (founded by a Bill Clinton long-time personal aide). At present, Abedin's currently vice chairman of Clinton's presidential campaign. Thus, there's no doubt Hillary's criminality is back under FBI scrutiny—and Huma's in the know.

Director James Comey's unexpected announcement is a ray of light surfacing in the final days of the presidential contest. All ironically facilitated via two shady personas, a matching set of wieners named Weiner: her emails, his perversion. (What a poetic mirror for their scandal-embroiled Clinton counterparts!) For Comey's eleventh hour disclosure, a stirring, scandal fatigued nation will be grateful for a fresh start: a Donald Trump victory 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

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

Two-Faced Hillary's Scarlet “C”

“No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.” – from The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, featured in “Primal Fear” (1996)

“I'm kind of far removed from the struggles of the middle class because [of] the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy. And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged.” – Hillary Clinton's remarks to Goldman-Black Rock, February 4, 2014

The game has been rigged, of course, by Hillary Clinton. If she's anything, she's the anti-Lincoln: an amoral, big government fascist willing to tear America apart to assure her own presidential ambitions. Released WikiLeaks's emails have revealed that Mrs. Clinton is perfectly fine with “both a public and a private position” related to, for example, fat-cat bankers on Wall Street. During the second presidential town hall debate, a questioner wanted to know whether “it is okay for politicians to be two-faced.” Shamelessly, “Big Sister” Hillary invoked Honest Abe to mitigate her own clear criminality (read: Server-gate). Would Abraham Lincoln have traded influence for personal enrichment as she has: $238 million in “personal earnings,” and a 2 billion dollar slush fund from their “charitable” foundation? The answer is never. Mr. Lincoln, unlike the grifters Clinton, was not for sale.

As past is prologue, power-obsessed, money-grubbing Hillary stands for nothing, save herself. Indeed, she is utterly bereft of any benevolent principles whatsoever. Despite an avalanche of damning evidence, what will it take for the American electorate to wake up to the reality of this amoral, two-faced creature? Specifically, in a bid to secure Bernie Sanders voters for herself, she reversed her position (from pro to against) on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Likewise, during the sham of a Democratic primary she came out against her “gold standard” Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which she had previously supported as Secretary of State.

The Hillary rabbit hole goes deeper, and gets worse. Per WikiLeaks, Mrs. Clinton does want open trade and open borders. In a private speech to Brazil bank Banco Itau in 2013, she reportedly said:

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

Given the ever-present threat of radical Islamic terrorism—and the underclass of illegal aliens bring all manners of their violence and problems with them—who but insane Democrats want unsecured borders?

They don't care one whit for displaced migrants or legal immigration. They want new bodies to populate their poverty plantation. A permanent, illegal underclass fits Hillary's personal ends nicely. Likewise, Bernie Sanders's economic fantasy of free college education for millennial votes. These are simply riffs from LBJ's political playbook. He established his good-sounding public sham, his so-called “War on Poverty.” To this day, politicians have wasted 22 trillion, but the poverty rate has not improved since the policy was announced in 1964. Privately, LBJ admitted his actual agenda: “I’ll Have Those N*ggers Voting Democrat For The Next 200 Years!” The overarching political strategy here is identical: pack the country with government-dependent Democratic voters to keep progressives in power in perpetuity.

Unfortunately, the re-election of failed, scandal-prone Barack Obama in 2012 conclusively demonstrated that anything is possible in American politics. All one needs is a sycophantic MSM to hammer a propagandist narrative. In Mrs. Clinton's case on offer is an empty resume—a track record of lies, corruption and failure—and the triviality of her gender. It's absolutely unacceptable for any presidential candidate to wear one face in public and another in private. Even Hillary's campaign chairman John Podesta acknowledged that she often “says things that are untrue.” More to the point, the late New York Times columnist William Safire called Mrs. Clinton “a congenital liar” decades ago. Recall that the purpose of any U.S. president is to follow the Constitution—and represent the will and best interests of the American people. Every lie, every evasion, every lawbreaking scandal is the fallout from Hillary's elitist arrogance and her self-centered political calculations.  

WikiLeaks has also disclosed that Mr. Podesta wrote: “I know she [Hillary] has begun to hate everyday Americans.” The feeling is mutual in many clear-thinking quarters of the country. They would certainly forgive shamed Hester Prynne her adultery, but not deplorable Hillary; a scot-free con who proudly wears her corruption like a Scarlet C.

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

FBI's Comey: A Weasel Among Rats

“You can call us wrong, but don't call us weasels. We are not weasels.” – FBI Director James Comey at a congressional hearing on September 28, 2016

Sigmund Freud would have a field day with Mr. Comey's psyche. Dr. Freud would say he protests too much. Why does the FBI Director compare himself—and the now perhaps forever tarnished organization he heads—to a pack of weasels? Guilty subconsciousness perhaps, Herr Doctor?

Recall, the FBI's motto is Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity. Once important American ideals, today reduced to a bumper sticker slogan. Consider the bureau's former principled reputation of incorruptibility: of holding the powerful to account without fear or favor. Men like Eliot “untouchable” Ness who risked life and limb to combat criminally rather than condone it as James Comey clearly has. How else does one explain his actions of last January, of laying out an unambiguous case of multifaceted Clintonian law breaking, only to ultimately sit on his hands and close the investigations?

To add insult to injury, Mr. Comey foolishly took the political heat for his public pronouncements. Yet, the fix was in before that. Specifically, when spouse Bill Clinton had an “unplanned” chinwag with Attorney General Lynch. Both in different private planes which by “sheer coincidence” crossed paths on the same tarmac in Phoenix. So the nation's top prosecutor meeting privately with the spouse (an ex-president) whose wife is the prime subject of a then looming criminal indictment isn't a colossal conflict of interest? Moreover, is it any surprise that just days after that infamous meeting AG Lynch announced that Hillary would face no criminal charges?

So, one supposes during their 20 to 25 minute exchange, Mrs. Lynch and Mr. Clinton only chitchatted about the grand kids as was claimed? Seriously? That's the same malarkey as Mrs. Clinton's yoga routines and Chelsea's wedding plans that she claimed populated her private servers. Those unsecured, illegal devices likely hacked by bad actors in which Mr. Comey stated 110 emails were classified—and 48,000 (read: 33,000 originally reported and an additional 15,000 recently uncovered) were destroyed.

By ignoring the law—and the evidence—Mr. Comey wrongly recommended non-prosecution. He laughable claimed he didn't want to interfere in the upcoming election, but he has done precisely that—and not on the side of the angels. How is any presidential candidate known by reputation to be a habitual liar—an immoral and greedy person mired in 40 years of infamy—good for the country? If the email scandal wasn't malfeasance enough, there is the Clinton Foundation “charity”: a pay-for-play scheme involving high-level political favors in exchange a personal Clinton slush fund (while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State). The 238 million the Clintons have “earned” after being “dead broke” 15 years ago doesn't even factor in the 2 billion dollar foundation they control. By his own Freudian omission, Mr. Comey's a weasel, but the crooked Clintons are far worse: unapologetic rats who make Richard “Watergate” Nixon look, by comparison, like a church mouse.

Experience repeatedly demonstrates that honesty and the 'for sale' Clintons have never coincided. They should be on the verge of the big house, not the White House. What on earth is going on here? How can the superficial irrelevancy of identity politics—this time in the trivial form of an empty skirt by a corrupt wearer—obscure this obvious truth? One wonders, is this propagandist Germany of 1933 or freedom-loving America of 2016? How can such an ignoble character enjoy such mindless support—and have a 50/50 shot at becoming the next U.S. president?

In any case, Mr. Nixon was drummed out of the nation's highest office for his law breaking. He certain didn't go in the door dogged by a well-established track record of villainy as Hillary Clinton hopes to. That, too, is a vital distinction. Yet, the Mrs. Pig Pen of American politics has only one unpredictable barrier to overcome if she can: outsider Donald Trump.

In the final analysis, political power without a guiding morality—and/or respect for law—is inherently corrupt. This dynamic encapsulates the disastrous Obama years (soon mercifully to be in the rear view mirror), James Comey's “weaselly” words of last week, and the titanic mistake of electing another corrupt Clinton to the Oval Office in November.

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

Forgettable, Regrettable Republican Turncoats

“I want my chance to fail as miserably as the Mitt Romney campaign failed. Romney lost eight of nine swing states, won 6 percent of the black vote and only 27 percent of Hispanics. I want my chance to do as poorly.” – Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump’s new campaign manager, making light of establishment Republicans humiliating losses in the past two presidential elections

Despite a seemingly endless litany of scandals and policy failures at home and abroad, the only reason why Barack Obama was gifted a second presidential term is because some 4 million conservatives stayed home on election day. In retrospect, they were convinced the Romney-Ryan ticket wasn't loyal to Republicans, and time has proven this assessment true. How else does one explain Mr. Romney's violation of Ronald Reagan's “11^th Commandment” never to speak ill of fellow Republicans? Yet, his error is far more insidious than that. Perhaps for spite at the rejection of his own 2012 candidacy, Mr. Romney has done all that he can to publicly thwart the overwhelming Republican choice in 2016:

“Frankly, I think we have a good reason to believe that there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes. I think there’s something there. Either he’s not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is or he hasn’t been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn’t been giving money to the vets or to the disabled like he’s been telling us he’s doing.”

Without a hint of irony, this oblivious “gentleman statesman” parroted the same scurrilous charge (non-payment of income tax) against Donald Trump that was wrongly leveled at him by the smarmy former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). From the slander-shielding Senate floor on August 2nd, 2012, Reid claimed:

“As we know, he [Romney] has refused to release his tax returns. … So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not.”

Of course, such statements were all lies. After Obama's reelection, Mr. Reid smugly rationalized his dishonesty to CNN's Dana Bash: “He [Romney] didn't win, did he?”

November's upcoming presidential election is a simple binary choice—without a third option. (After all, that was the purpose of the robust primary season and 16 Republican candidates.) Regarding the clear winner of that process, Donald Trump, establishment Republicans fall into three equally unacceptable camps. The first is Mitt Romney's outright criticism. The second is exemplified by “not ready” Paul Ryan's coy, tepid and waffling support. The third is the Bush Family's silence (a non-endorsement conclusively demonstrated by two former U.S. presidents—Republicans both—who boycotted their own party's convention). One and all, these are the actions of self-absorbed turncoats. Anything less then full-throated support of record-breaking Donald Trump is de facto support of Hillary Clinton: the most crooked politician ever to be within a hair's breath of the Oval Office.

Much as insulated Republican elites would dearly love a face-saving third option to hide behind, there isn't one. Regardless of party affiliation, they have been utterly corrupted by the rarefied air of the beltway bubble. Therefore, in function, they are no different from Democrats. These are servants of the status quo; and that's what scandal-immersed Hillary guarantees: an Obama third term. Indeed, why would they advocate for an outsider when that posture inherently threatens their own power bases? They are precisely what is wrong with the GOP.

This absolute tone deafness to the people's suffering (under the disastrous Obama years) neatly explains the Trump phenomenon. So, their quiet support of Mrs. Clinton is no mystery. To a person, these entrenched RINOs have forgotten their purpose as representative voices for average citizens. The Bushes, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan (and their entitled ilk) have been at the pinnacle of American political power. Unfortunately, by their collective behavior they are ingrates, demonstrating no honor or patriotism to our country when power is not within their greedy mitts. Instead, they nurse petty, personal beefs with Donald Trump rather than standing with the change-demanding electorate. Thus, these “public servants” do only what's good for them: America's future be damned. And if Hillary Clinton is elected, it will be.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Invasion of Political Body Snatchers

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.” - Ronald Reagan

Why does the Washington Times consistently allow know-nothing liberals—the Oren M. Spieglers of the world—to speak for conservatives? After a robust Republican primary of 17 impressive candidates, the voters have made their choice. That selection—unconventional Donald Trump—has accrued more votes than former nominees Mitt Romney and John McCain. In America true political power still resides with 'We the People.' Therefore, Mr. Ryan's coy, Johnny-come-lately “support” doesn't demonstrate patriotism (as Mr. Spiegler wrongly claims), but contempt for it.

Despite what ever personal reservations he is privately entitled to, Mr. Ryan's long-forgotten duty is to us, not himself. Yet, his entrenched elitist resistance shows he “knows better.” Therefore, the House Speaker is no longer a public servant (a representative). He's been in Washington so long he fancies himself a de facto overlord. Is it any wonder that average citizens want an outsider (beyond the body snatching beltway) for president?

Though has actions, Mr. Ryan doesn't believe in the “traditional tenets of the Republican Party” either. Beyond lip service—to ideals like limited government or his broken promise to repeal Obamacare—he hasn't “made a career out of railing against” the ills of government, he has enabled them. Recall, Mr. Ryan's been in office since the tail end of Bill Clinton's presidency (1999) and all through the economically disastrous Obama years. Further, who else but he has recklessly and irresponsibly approved 2 trillion more to the nation's Chinese credit card? In truth, during Mr. Ryan's entire time in Congress, the country has already had budgets “wildly out of balance and add[ed] trillions of dollars to the deficit.” Therefore, anything billionaire businessman Trump likely does will be an improvement. Yet, a vote for Hillary is for an economy-killing, Obama-preserving third term. It's mad hatter lunacy: the wrongheaded decision to ram the same intractable iceberg that sunk the RMS Titanic.

Speaking of a monstrous block of ice, Mrs. Clinton, as president, is not the “lesser of two evils.” Not by a long shot. A habitual liar under multiple federal investigations for corruption, influence peddling—and perhaps even Server-gate treason—is preferable? After the editor who approved publication of Mr. Spiegler's propagandist “Hold Ryan accountable” is subdued and heavily medicated, the men with straitjackets should be immediately dispatched to that author's Upper Saint Clair, PA address. One expects this utter nonsense from the progressive Washington Post, but not from their evidently body snatched counterparts at the Washington Times.

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