Biden’s words fowl in DeSantis’ mouth

How can identical words be “offense” only when uttered by a Republican politician?  Ron DeSantis, the Trump-supported candidate for governor of Florida, said of his Democratic opponent, “He’s an articulate spokesman for far-left views, and he’s a charismatic candidate.”  The sensible among us would recognize such descriptors as inherently complimentary.

Not so with the free speech-repressing politically correct crowd.  From DeSantis the left automatically heard “racist dog whistles” because the Democratic nominee is Andrew Gillum, the progressive mayor of Tallahassee, who happens to be black.  By contrast, the left remains silent as crickets that Joe Biden used the same language to describe then presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2007:

“I mean you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s storybook, man.”

Obviously the faux outrage is only reserved for representatives of the anti-bigotry party of Lincoln.  Unfortunately, this tempest in a teapot was further inflamed by Mr. DeSantis’ unsavvy reference to “monkey this up” by embracing Mr. Gillum’s socialist agenda.  For political polarization, Democrats assume the worst, most twisted  interpretation of GOP gaffes: a quality completely ignored in their own candidates.  With the left's linguistic double standard, truth is an easy sacrifice for an ill-gotten political advantage.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Lindsey Graham: Ruinous RINO

Conservative icon President Ronald Reagan has a famous Eleventh Commandment that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) foolishly disregards to his—and the GOP's—political peril. It is thus: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. Yet, for the enticing glow of a TV camera—and the gotcha questions of a liberal interviewer—he will say just about anything:

“[Attorney General] Jeff Sessions is wrong. These kids are not taking jobs from American citizens, they're part of our country.”

By any legal definition, citizens make up America; this is true of every sovereign nation on earth. As Sen. Graham received his J.D. from the University of South Carolina in 1981, one would assume he comprehends the distinction. After all, the law is unambiguous: either one resides stateside legitimately, or not.

Only one who slept through law school could possibly take the position that AG Sessions is incorrect regarding the “Dreamers.” Specifically, Barack Obama's June 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was an overreaching executive order. Such rule breaking is the purvey of emperors or would-be kings: never any Constitution-respecting U.S. president (like Trump). In fact, Mr. Graham should be incensed that his lawmaking role had been so roguishly usurped by DACA: not defending the undeserving recipients of this ultra-constitutional farce.

Given Mr. Graham's inexplicable attitude, isn't it disconcerting that this senior senator has been a member of Congress for more than two decades? In all that time, why hasn't his ilk resolved the illegal migration problem? Moreover, rather then taking Mr. Obama to task for creating this immigration mess, Mr. Graham publicly criticizes a member of his own party for following the spirit, and the letter, of the law?

Why do so many prominent Republicans like he, John McCain (R-AZ) and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—indigenous Washington “swamp” creatures one and all—defend their do-nothing status quo? At every turn, it seems, they offer nothing more than full-throated excuses such as, laughably, McConnell's:

“Our new president, of course, has not been in this line of work before, and I think had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the Democratic process.”

Therefore, one can understand why the can-do attitude of a results-driven, private sector capitalist would challenge the bureaucratic intricacies of government that lifelong politicians hide behind. Consequently, a main reason why President Trump was elected: to “shake things up” that badly need it! Insanely, these RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) undermine him and the agenda that he—and they—were elected upon! Why are they indistinguishable from their truth afflicted Democratic counterparts?

Once again, Mr. Graham is mistaken when he, as Democrats, blithely claims that “Dreamers” are not siphoning resources—and opportunities—that should be reserved for U.S. citizens. Indeed, how can this “leader” ignore the negative impacts of the undocumented? One telling example is taxpayer funded public school education. Per the National Center for Educational Statistics:

“Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States in 2013–14 amounted to $634 billion, or $12,509 per public school student enrolled in the fall (in constant 2015–16 dollars).”

For context, per Pew Center statistics, some 11 million illegals reside in the United States. Of those, approximately 17% are under the age of 18. As a typical pre-college education is twelve years, at $12,509 per year for 1,870,000 illegals amounts to: $280,701,960,000! Furthermore, related to employment, Pew Hispanic Center puts the number of illegal aliens in the workforce at 8 million. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median wage for full time workers in the United States in the final quarter of 2016 was $44,148 per year. That amounts to $353,184,000,000 in lost citizens' wages. How's that not taking by foreign squatters from the fiscally abused taxpayers who also pay Lindsey Graham's yearly salary of $174,000? Is he just insulated or completely obtuse?

After more than seven and a half months of GOP inaction and broken promises (read: Obamacare repeal) what's clear is that RINOs, as he, care nothing about their ill-used constituents. You know, the voters who elevated his kind to majorities in Congress. So, why the utter disconnect by the upper echelon of the Republican Party?

It turns out these folks have a political syndrome akin to Jan Brady's Marcia envy. For those unfamiliar with the sitcom “The Brady Bunch” (1969-1974), Jan was her family's insecure loner, the often marginalized middle child to her popular paragon of an older sister. Beautiful and talented, Marcia naturally attracted attention overshadowing her inferior sibling. Like Jan, RINOs desperately want to be liked—above all else! Ironically by the Trump-hating liberal clique that is the MSM. However, the press is populated by propagandist “mean girls” unwilling to lavish the same slavish devotion they habitually bestow on Democrats. Hence, RINOs utter soft, milquetoast phrases, as exemplified above, mimicking progressive perspectives. Specifically, that Lindsey Graham wrongly sees the offspring of lawbreakers as part of our societal fabric is inconsistent with immigration law—and the will of American patriots. How then can he also support funding Trump's southern border wall?

To play both sides of an issue by subtly pandering—to go as the political winds dictate—typifies gelatinous RINOs, and polarizing liberals. Thanks to ongoing media spin, the electorate is likely to ignore Democrats' many untruths, but they will expose the GOP's lack of legislative accomplishments. At this rate, Mr. Graham will likely find himself, and his party, consigned to the minority after the 2018 midterm elections. Meanwhile, the debt keeps growing; the Obamacare repeal failed (by RINO John McCain's deciding vote); tax reform is uncertain; and the voters have lost faith in clearly feckless Congressional Republicans. Rather than embracing the daily opportunities to follow Trump's lead, this fork-tongued backbencher will find himself returned there.

Still, a cushy office, a six-figure salary, and the trappings of power are nice booby prizes. That's certainly enough to build the flagging self-esteem of the Jan Bradys of the world, anyway. But, if Sen. Graham wants to truly be a winner—like Marcia Brady, Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan—he needs to relentlessly champion conservatism via the priorities set forth by this president forthwith. To that end, focusing on the concerns of his fellow citizens—rather than parroting the bleeding heart narratives of the left—would be a vast improvement. In the final analysis, being an ineffectual RINO fosters scorn and mistrust from every corner. It guarantees failure: no matter which side Lindsey Graham finds himself on.

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

June 12: A Love-Hate Date

Almost perfectly bisecting the most popular month for marriages (named after the domestic goddess Juno) is June 12^th. That date—defined by two notable circumstances (and geography)—now has diametrically opposed meanings. Herein, the love-hate contours of today's political divide are clearly illuminated.

In a nod to Juno, let's start with the good. In the commonwealth whose tourism slogan is “Virginia is for Lovers”. In Richmond, a new historical marker denotes a cultural milestone: a “loving” 50^th anniversary. Ironically, this sign stands outside the building that once housed the Virginia Court of Appeals that was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling: Loving v. Virginia, 1967. That decision ended Southern states’ bans on interracial marriage. Synchronistically named, Richard and Mildred Loving were a white man and a black woman. Their successful legal challenge facilitated today's commonplace marital experience. That means 11 million are wed to a person of another race. Per Pew Center statistics, that's 1 in 6, or 17 percent compared to 3 percent in 1967. Thus, how appropriate that for Virginia June 12^th is henceforth known as Loving Day. What could be more life-affirming than that?

By contrast, in Orlando, Florida, June 12^th marks an infamous one year anniversary. How unfortunate that the horror of mass murderer Omar Mateen—who killed 49 (and injured more than 50) innocents at the Pulse gay nightclub—should correspond on the same day. Yet, that it does is instructive. For both events demonstrate the deep-seeded influences that shape our ever-evolving society. Are we to once again embrace harmony: the shared melting pot experience of being Americans? Or do violent leftist protesters, name-calling, baseless Russian conspiracies and “headless” stunts continue to dominate our political discourse? Do we rise to a new day delivered by the 2016 election, or descend further into the polarization that epitomized the last administration?

As Richard and Mildred persisted, so we must embrace our collective goodness—despite these divisive signs of our time. This must happen for the continued well-being of the nation. That means honoring the past, not tearing down old monuments; or otherwise opening old wounds with spurious claims like certain lives matter, and others don't. We would be wise to heed the Lovings's quiet and dignified example over the ratings-garnering, destructive possibility. 

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

Crying Over “Shattered” Hillary

“You know as well as I do, that plenty of people playing this game, they don't think that way. They're willing to sell their souls, crawl through sewers, lie to people, divide them, play on their worst fears for nothing! Just for the prize [to become a U.S. president].” – Jack Stanton (a.k.a. “Bill Clinton”), played by John Travolta, from “Primary Colors” (1998)

In light of the other option, the clear-minded are thrilled that Donald Trump is president. Deliciously, he finds himself ensconced in Oval Office while Hillary trolled the woods of Chappaqua, New York; a relegated political has-been too briefly put out to pasture. (Ah, if only she had stayed in the thicket. Without a hint of the grace demonstrated by defeated French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, Mrs. Clinton has re-emerged to absurdly join the “Trump resistance”. With the power of the office behind him, it's utter lunacy for her to assume she'll be more successful now.) In hindsight, she ran on sheer superficiality: name recognition, her gender and an unstated message of entitlement. Given her (and Obama's) non-existent record of accomplishments, she could not run on issues or vision as Mr. Trump successfully did. So, she took Jack Stanton's low road described above, political polarization:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” – Hillary Clinton at a New York City fundraiser on September 9, 2016

Her hollow narrative and divisive strategy were not nearly enough. The Electoral College results made this plain. Speaking of being grossly generalistic, the Clintons have always been about themselves. That's precisely the unintended message Hillary's campaign loudly proclaimed. Didn't her ego-centered, gender-specific slogan “I'm with her” say everything? Contrast that with President Trump's Reaganesque “Make America Great Again”.

Beyond his obvious love of country—as transparent as Hillary's is absent—one logically suspects Mr. Trump initially ran for the presidency on a lark. He's pleasantly surprised (as his supporters) to find himself in the job: “Hey, I'm president! Can you believe it?” While he naturally wanted the gig, unlike Hillary, he didn't need it. Herein is another important difference between the two.

A new political tell-all, “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign” by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, is making the rounds. Like Marley's ghost to Richard Cohen's Scrooge, this exposé has compelled this Washington Post columnist to write his own shallow Hillary postmortem called “The reason Clinton lost.” As shell-shocked as her most ardent supporters, this partisan begrudgingly acknowledges that it was supposed to be “her turn”. He can articulate no other rationale for her candidacy: “As a mental exercise, I tried to come up with a message myself: “Hillary Clinton—because she’s not Trump” is the best I could do. As it turned out, she could do no better.” That's because there was nothing else. In the final analysis, Mrs. Clinton ran for the highest office in the land simply because she felt she deserved it.

The skin-deep analysis of this award-winning investigative reporter—and four-time Pulitzer Prize finalist for commentary—is little more than pro-Clinton gossamer and anti-Trump spit. What of Cohen's sanitized description of Hillary as “a cold and somewhat distant Midwestern archetype” and “a politician with no gift for politics”? For real-life context, would anyone hire an auto mechanic with no innate ability to fix cars?

Along these lines, he insults the reputation of Walter Mondale by comparing her to him. Yet, Hillary has none of the former vice president's decency or warmth. Moreover, she lacks his governmental competence (read: As Secretary of State, Hillary's department lost 6 billion dollars) or the gravitas of an elder statesman (read: Hillary's “Russian reset”: her humiliating plastic red button stunt). In fact, their only relevant connection is the shared stain of two Democrats who failed to attain the White House.

Inconvenient truths regarding Hillary are barely mentioned by Cohen, or ignored entirely by him. For example, he minimizes “Server-gate”—a Nixonian scandal on steroids—as “a historically trivial matter”. So, Mrs. Clinton's illegal use of private email servers—that likely put American operative lives at risk by exposing national security secrets to foreign powers and/or bad actors—is no big deal? Beyond that, what of her ever-changing inconsistencies that amounted to boldfaced lies to the American people? Furthermore, what of “Charity-gate,” the influence-peddling of the now defunct Clinton Foundation? Kool-Aid drinker Cohen doesn't even bring it up.

He bases his missive on a few personal moments spent with her, finding Hillary “fresh, irreverent and funny”. Well, can't anyone be snowed with a false impression during a brief interaction? Behind the scenes, via day-to-day experience, it's well known that potty-mouthed Hillary's personality is cruel: a shrew in the extreme. Hers is the Secret Service's punishment detail: the worst assignment to be had. But when one wears Mr. Cohen's rose colored glasses one sees what he wants to, right?

On that basis, Columnist Cohen contends, “But [Hillary] Clinton’s great failing, the book—not to mention the election itself—makes clear, was her inability to fashion a message.” What a coy, cloying criticism for such an obviously fundamentally flawed candidate! Likewise, his juvenile conclusion that “She lost, and a fool won” is equally petulant and misleading. Candidate Trump—a first-timer in the political sphere—was just “lucky” to best 16 traditional Republican candidates, plus Hillary in the general election? By any fair measure that's more than the randomness that luck implies, that's genius.

Salt of the earth swing state voters in the economically depressed Rust Belt (that she basically ignored during her campaign) got unlikable Hillary's “coal miner” message all right: they didn't matter to her, so she didn't matter to them. Thus, in their wisdom, they made the better choice: Donald Trump. Richard Cohen should respect that despite his raw disdain for this president. It turns out this political dinosaur doesn't get “the message”. Neither does Hillary, an amoral person unworthy of sycophant Cohen's empty rationalizations.

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