Democrats' “Duck” Parade

“Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – George Orwell (1946)

The political landscape of Obama's America in 2016 looks daily like Mr. Orwell's dystopian “1984.” With the rise of progressives' political correctness and moral relativism, truth no longer matters. What remains is attacking, partisan narratives by ego-driven, childish and irresponsible “leaders” who would give Machiavelli pause.

A prime example is shameless Hillary Clinton. She blithely ignored FBI Director James Comey's public dressing down related to her Server-gate scandal. Outrageously to this day, Mrs. Clinton still denies that she sent or received highly classified information in violation of federal law (on her likely hacked private servers). Despite clear evidentiary findings, charges were not pursued by Obama's Justice Department. On ABC's “This Week” last Sunday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said, “I've prosecuted cases like that in my years at the Justice Department. Hillary Clinton skated because she's running for president. She clearly violated the law.” So, criminal wrongdoing and political corruption are somehow not that when it comes to any politician with the surname Clinton. Quack, but no duck?

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated scenario. Little reported last January—and seemingly out of thin air—Barack Obama conjures up a $400 million dollar “payment” (read: payoff) to Iran. (Once again, with his trusty pen and phone, he demonstrates: who needs Congress to make or approve appropriations?) With the nation's debt exceeding $19 trillion, the Imams naturally wouldn't accept a check? Joking aside, as U.S. law prohibits the use of U.S. dollars, foreign currencies like euros and Swiss francs were airlifted in on an industrial sized wooden pallet. The result was the very convenient sudden release of four American hostages.

Speaking of a similar U.S. hostage situation—and another terrible Obama “deal”—Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl comes readily to mind. In that exchange, one likely treasonous deserter was swapped for five high level Afghani Taliban terrorists (who returned with much fanfare to the battlefield). Both cases are windfalls for the enemy. This one is simply economic. At $100,000 a head to the largest state sponsor of radical Islamic terrorism, who says crime doesn't pay? Yet, given America's military efforts since the last Bush Administration to combat militant groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, how is this latest farce by Democrats not direct de facto funding of this worldwide death cult? Quack, quack, but still no duck?

Speaking of Mr. Orwell's warning concerning sanitizing murder, we arrive at an intriguing murder mystery. I refer to last month's killing of one Seth Rich, 27, tragically gunned down from the back while walking along a Washington, D.C. street. Despite the fact that neither the victim's watch nor his wallet were stolen, police are calling the incident a “botched robbery.” Beyond a real-life Agatha Christie whodunit, one wonders why WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is offering a $20,000 reward for information related to this man's death. While he steadfastly refuses to disclose any specific source, he cryptically told Dutch television on Tuesday, “Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks.” Given the context of recent exposure of leaked internal DNC documents by the selfsame WikiLeaks, one is left to wonder what Mr. Assange's interest could possibly be in an obscure DNC staffer—other than the blatantly apparent. Quack, quack, quack.

Every little child knows that any waddling, quacking bird that looks like a duck is unmistakably that. That's true for anyone with a lick of common sense. This is precisely what Democrats lack. Indeed, the Obama years have been largely defined by the pathological and habitual refusal to appropriately label circumstances what they clearly are. Therefore, Democrats duck reality as readily as the mindless lemmings who support them.

Mr. Obama's progression (read: fundamental transformation) for America is no child's game of duck, duck, goose. After almost eight disastrous years, America's been a lame duck domestically and worse, a dead one abroad. Where does the goose fit in? A third Obama term under lying Hillary—and America's goose is cooked.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Nail-biting Binary Politics

One way or another, Neo [an anagram meaning “the one”], this war is going to end. Tonight, the future of both worlds will be in your hands... or in his. – The Oracle from “The Matrix.”

Due almost entirely to anti-American progressives (read: lawless Obama and his lying would-be successor Hillary Clinton), national politics are so polarized, they are binary. That's exactly like on/off computer code. In the almost 8 years under the corrupt ministrations of Barack Obama (much like his O-shaped symbol) America has been a zero (0). In practical terms, that means off an economic cliff (with an escalating 19.3 trillion debt) and an impotent void (0) overseas. In truth, our republic's vitality and viability hangs by a thread. A 50/50 rescue/ruin paradigm to be determined by November's presidential election. Will America continue to be a zero (0), helmed incompetently by yet another lying Democrat? This one arrogantly exclaimed:

“For goodness sake, that is not gonna happen [a campaign-ending federal indictment]. I’m not even answering that question.” — Hillary Clinton

Or will it be revitalized to a First World one (1) by Donald Trump? The stakes could not be higher, the outcome more uncertain.

Make no mistake: neither Hill nor Bill care not one whit (0) for our country. Mrs. Clinton's potential election is a victory solely for them (2 = 0). The Oval Office is the ultimate economic trough for this tag team of amoral sows to stick their collective snouts back in. It's retaining political power for even greater shakedowns: power brokering for stratospheric self-enrichment. See the well-established pattern: how else does one go from Hillary's “dead broke” to worth over 100 million in 15 short years? So they can do better, become billionaires in 4 (or 8) short years from further ripping off America to the highest bidder?

That's a zero-sum (0) game for everyone else. One wonders if divine intervention is necessary for average Americans to finally wake up to the insidious truth. It is insanity to elect another America-hating, Constitution-disregarding Democrat to high office. Progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are anti-Reagan and anti-Lincoln. They are twin scourges of Founding Fathers' nightmares. What their built-in checks and balances have failed to rein in (read: the Congressional do-nothing Republican establishment and “Notorious RBG” on the Supreme Court).

Let me be clear, a plague has flourished on the U.S. political landscape: hard left big government control fascists, equal parts lawlessness, lies and corruption. To ignorantly choose such creatures to “lead” America in the future is yet another self-inflicted wound with domestic, global and historical consequences. Liberty has been greatly dimmed at home—and virtually extinguished abroad (read: the Middle East takeover by ISIS, the Iran nuclear “deal” etc.). In the extreme, one no longer wonders how monstrous figures rise to absolute power like in Germany in 1933:

“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” – Adolf Hitler

This is why progressives (fascists), abetted by a propagandist MSM, make empty promises to the next generation of “free” stuff. This blatant trolling for votes is a resounding warning (school bell) to the wise.

Related specifically to Mrs. Clinton, the fix has been since the beginning. Specifically, way back in February during the Iowa Caucuses, how else does one explain 6 different dead-locked precincts tossing tie-breaking coins all fall Ms. Clinton's way? (Per Las Vegas oddsmakers, six consecutive appearances of heads or tails is a statistical probability of 1.5%. That's 64-to-1 against.) An outcome that luck has nothing to do with. Likewise, during the sham contest between she and now vanquished socialist Bernie Sanders, he kept winning state elections, but losing in the all-important delegate count. Moreover, fast forward to the political theater of last week. On the same day, the first day Clinton and Obama appear together on the campaign stump, FBI's Director James Comey announces his boundary-overstepping recommendation that criminal charges not be filed against Hillary for Server-gate?

So it's no rules or consequences for the elites like Hillary ‘scot-free’ Clinton, is that what our dilapidated democracy's come to? A coin flip that may place the fate of the nation (and perhaps the world) in immoral hands such as hers? In a poll released last Monday, despite clear evidence of law breaking—and treasonous espionage—only 56% disapprove of the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton? That's little more than another coin toss. (How about completely failed Mr. Obama's approval ratings that also inexplicably hover at 50%?) Despite unambiguous criminality, why do half of those surveyed not seem to care?

This tragic political phenomenon is not exclusive to America of late. A case and point was the successful Brexit vote to leave the ‘bananas’ European Union. That was 52% for and 48% against, another virtual 50/50 split. In every one of these situations the political establishment (via the media) throws its nefarious weight in an autocratic direction beneficial to itself. That direction always maintains the status quo. This is the reason for moral equivalency, and the infestation of political correctness in today’s national politics. Since Obama, world-shaping decisions are either left in wicked hands, or to the whims of fate. A highly risky numbers game favoring the powerful (and enmeshed) establishments of both political parties (2 = 0). Therefore, for the voters to unite (1) behind the outsider—the unconventional candidacy of Donald Trump—remains the average citizen’s best bet to return America to her deserved First World (1) glory. It's a 50/50 proposition so choose wisely. One (1) or zero (0)?

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

Beware Democratic leaders' moral relativism (Monica Crowley, Washington Times, January 14, 2015)

Like a prized Picasso, I'd like to frame Monica Crowley's "Obama, Hillary and the Dr. Phil foreign policy" commentary and display it prominently for posterity.  Her analysis is that insightful.  It is like she gave the two of them political couple's therapy; I doubt Dr. Phil could do so well.  For example, Ms. Crowley rightly pointed out Mr. Obama's longstanding behavioral pattern--from Cuba, to the Middle East to China and beyond--it seems our president has never met a totalitarian Leftist dictator he didn't bow to (think of his global apology tour early on in his administration) and deliver flexibility to (by turning a blind eye to the Iranian nuclear program and Russian aggression in Ukraine).  Similarly, Hillary's foreign policy blundering during her lackluster turn as secretary of state did nothing more than sow the seeds that have emboldened America's enemies around the world.  In Mr. Obama's case, history has borne out the critical flaw of inexperience as well as the abject failure of anti-American sentiment and anti-capitalistic policies based upon a one-size-fits-all mentality (think Obamacare) of government intrusion and control.  His and hers foreign policy are also a matching set indicating apologist pandering to geopolitical foes, change for short term personal political gain and the hopeful naïveté to see the burning world not as it is, but how one wants it to be.  Although Mrs. Clinton is technically more of a known quantity than Mr. Obama was when he assumed the presidency, her resume is equally skin deep: first lady is not an official job description and her track record as a carpet-bagging, do-nothing senator from New York does not bode well for her prospects to successfully lead the country.  After a tumultuous eight years, the last thing America needs is more weak-kneed moral relativism by a president wrongly focused upon capitulation to the enemy rather than understanding that the primary responsibility of the job is looking out for our interests; and protecting, preserving and defending the Constitution.

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/monica-crowley-obama-hillary-clinton-too-sympathet/?page=all