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

When Celebrity Insults Patriotism

In our modern era of internet connectivity and 24-hour news cycles, for better or worse, celebrity is an instant megaphone for gaining national attention. Especially for the controversial, or in former quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers Colin Kaepernick's case, the foolishly aggrieved. Given his upbringing in a loving household by adoptive parents, a college scholarship—and per Spotrac earning $43,479,216 during a short-lived NFL career—one would think this manifestation of the American Dream would be the first to sing its praises. Yet, this “social justice warrior” instead chose to wear socks depicting little piggies wearing police hats. (How does that stunt not visually reference Black Lives Matter's anarchist chant, “Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon”?) Furthermore, if that wasn't derogatory enough, his habit of not standing during the national anthem also repeatedly violated polite sensibilities. In August of 2016, this agitator explained himself:

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.”

Unfortunately, that divisive example has spurred a larger movement of disrespect by NFL players that has turned off patriotic Americans from watching a previously beloved sport. Specifically, Sunday Night Football is down 9 percent from last week. For context, that's down 11 percent from the comparable game last year. Whether the loss of viewership will make a difference to the organization remains to be seen.

In any case, Mr. Kaepernick finds himself sacked for his lack of performance. Undoubtedly, his juvenile antics didn’t help matters either. If he's made himself odious to the league, isn't the fault his own? Beyond that, what has this sideshow really achieved? Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” (1992), has the answer:

“All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That's all you did. ... Sweet dreams, son.”

Why is metaphorical defecation on the American flag “the newest sport” of multimillionaire football players in the NFL? From grade school, all children are taught to stand, place hand over heart and salute the American flag. That's the purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance—a unifying promise to country—one nation under God. Simply put, it's the basis of civic responsibility and patriotism. By taking a knee (rather than standing), how is that not an act of blatant disrespect? Not to their fellow citizens per se, but to generations of buried soldiers who sacrificed everything to guarantee American liberty. A case in point is President Trump's September 24 tweet:

“Courageous Patriots have fought and died for our great American Flag — we MUST honor and respect it! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

In this situation that freedom includes petulant protesters bemoaning their good fortune: being paid a king's ransom for an hour of chasing a pigskin around a manicured field of dreams. What a tough life these pampered athletes have! How they “suffer” for their weekly gridiron exertions!

At least 5-time Superbowl champion quarterback Tom Brady of the aptly named New England Patriots thinks so:

“I mean, we go through a lot together, there’s a lot of blood, sweat and tears. I don’t think it’s easy to play this sport. I mean, there’s a lot of guys that sacrifice a lot.”

Certainly actual heroes, the ones facing gunfire storming the beaches at Normandy (read: the Allied invasion, codenamed Operation Neptune, on D-Day: Tuesday, June 6, 1944) during World War II—like our recovering wounded warriors of today—would laugh at the absurdity of such a pretentious comparison! After all, football is only a game: an artificial clash with rules and penalties. The goal is not to kill the enemy, it's to achieve a high score. To that end, it has brightly uniformed teams, adversarial elements and risk to life and limb, but no weapons and medical professionals on standby. Likewise, while both activities tax body vitality, battlefields don't have referees, timeouts or commercial interruptions. Moreover, recall that the base salary for a soldier is $19,198.80. Adding combat pay of $225.00 per month means another $2,700. As the average professional football player earns $1.9 million annually, who's exactly sacrificing a lot here, Mr. Brady? (In any case, certainly not he. According to Forbes, Mr. Brady is the 15th–highest paid athlete in the world. With salary and endorsements, he earned whopping $44 million in 2016.)

What is football, or any sporting event, supposed to be? A lighthearted diversion from real-life stressors for the audience. So, who wants polarizing leftists ruining a traditional American entertainment with their in-your-face grievance pretenses? In any other profession, employees are fired for disruptive displays at the workplace on company time. Is that really what fans pay to see? And if they object, why don't their feelings count?

Despite the superficial liberal narrative that this is a “racial” issue, it is not. The only pigments involved here are red, white and blue. After all, the flag's stars and stripes do not play favorites. They do not represent a particular class, creed or color. Indeed, this uniquely American symbol epitomizes everyone within her borders. Thus, ironically, players kneeling in a posture of submission during the national anthem are a cultural “attack” on America's foundation. Factoring in the U.S.'s many legitimate challenges, who needs Colin Kaepernick's growing tempest in a teapot? Who is to blame for its cascading dishonor but his muddled followers? Game day politically correct rabble-rousers with lots of money, but not a lick of sense.

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

DACA's Robin Hood Excuse

Only in legend—and our topsy-turvy political climate—can lawbreakers be treated like heroes. As an analogy, Robin Hood famously stole from the rich to give to the poor. While doing so, he ironically wore all green: the color of money. This bowed bandit took goods benefiting one group, the wealthy, and redistributed them to another. Thus, was this Sherwood Forest dweller, this “do-gooder” outlaw, the world's first Bernie Sanders (I-VT) socialist?

Today, can't any political scheme be rationalized via Robin Hood's claim of good intentions? For example, when Democrats made their late night, locked door legislative arrangement—with zero Republican support that average Americans knew nothing about—that's called Obamacare. Given their appropriation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, Robin of Loxley would have undoubtedly been among their number given his own sticky fingered proclivities. Yet, if a similar takeover was perpetrated in the private sector, it's likely criminal; or in DACA's (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) case at least unconstitutional.

How is stealing a quasi-legal status akin to citizenship not in the same vein as bank robbing? After all, in both cases something valuable is stolen by individuals with no legal entitlement to it. Complicating matters is the fact that such freedoms are intangible: in essence, more precious than Robin's booty could ever be. So, rather than a higher penalty, our society's lawmakers should reward such wrongdoing, again? For context, during the Reagan era, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) granted up to three million unauthorized migrants a path to legalization if they had been “continuously” present in the U.S. since January 1, 1982. Isn't any DACA replacement, regardless of its particulars, singing from the same sheet music? Make no mistake: it's politically correct amnesty for the undeserving. A popular and easy “fix” to low-information voters that bolsters the self-serving agendas of both political parties: cheap labor for Republicans, voters for Democrats. However, what's politically expedient still is not right. Laws turned into Swiss cheese by Washington's shortsighted whims are as effective as porous borders are safe.

Any democratic society must respect the laws that bind its members or it quickly degenerates into chaos, criminality and tribalism. Such is the ongoing occupation of America by an estimated 11 million illegals. Under the best scenario, even a handful of bad actors among this shadowy underclass are an existential threat. Who are they? Where are they? How do they support themselves? Where do their loyalties lie? How is any modern society to function without safeguards or a basic measure of cultural cohesion?

In any civilized society, lawbreakers go to jail for undermining society in various fundamental ways. Consequently, that outcome causes absences that divide families. Children from both camps, though no fault of their own, are made to suffer because of their parent's unlawful decisions. In a nutshell, illegals' offspring are “anchor babies” compelling D.C.'s current “compassionate” DACA doublespeak. In the name of their broods, why should illegals derive special privileges that no incarcerated citizen enjoys: to flout our laws with impunity, and escape consequences all to benefit their blameless loved ones? In other words, a good sounding excuse justifies almost any malfeasance. By that same skewed logic, should all convicts be liberated from America's prisons solely to rejoin their marginalized children? The fact remains that both sets of law violators present a potential danger to everyone else. Even a crowd-pleasing rogue like Robin Hood would not abet such a grand injustice.

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 

Confederacy Stains Church Windows

In 1953, was it really wrong to commemorate Gen. Robert E. Lee in the stained glass of Washington, D.C.'s National Cathedral? For context, a typical statement from this post-war unifier from March 15, 1866:

“We shall have to be patient, and suffer for awhile at least; and all controversy, I think, will only serve to prolong angry and bitter feelings and postpone the period when reason and charity may resume their sway.”

Politically correct progressives, it seems, are in a cultural jihad with his ghost. A modern-day McCarthyism-style fervor to annihilate the famous figures populating their own Confederate history. It's analogous to a real-life “Fahrenheit 451”: tearing down statues of their forebearers instead of burning books. However, the goal to eradicate threatening ideas—both sets of objects represent—is identical. Unfortunately, Democrats' demented dogma has recently shuttered the windows of a national religious landmark.

Last Tuesday evening—after a two-year debate—the cathedral's governing board voted to remove two 4-by-6 foot stain glass panels. Related to church windows, what do parishioners typically see other than emanations of color and beautiful designs? Still, the fact that they depict two important Confederate generals, Lee and Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, now means they must be purged. Per Church officials, this sudden “eyesore” is “a barrier to our important work on racial justice and racial reconciliation.” A convenient excuse of the self-righteous to perpetrate retribution against demonized, and defenseless, targets. Flawed as they may have been, weren't these American soldiers also Christians? Thus, to utilize Scripture as a guide:

“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother [Confederates] who sins against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy-seven times!'” (Matthew 18:21-2)

As their religion's prime directive is forgiveness, why have these church elders sown dissension instead?

Hence, their brief deconsecration service that followed Thursday was a farce. A hypocritical effort to mask scorn via a “respectful” ritual toward disparaged subjects. Yet, liberals' self-serving perpetuation of an ancient grievance has no relevance, for example, to Lee's post-war actions. In this matter, their ire is a bizarre and destructive (often violently expressed) mind-set. Thus, as the acknowledged face of the Confederacy, Gen. Lee is a scapegoat for Democrats' own existential crisis of conscience. In short, they use his image to inflame today's political landscape. Their groundless accusations—as their unfounded rage—have no bearing on him, then as now.

Neither do their baseless claims of his influence have any connection to race relations in America of 2017. Our widespread celebration of diversity—as demonstrated by commonplace interracial marriage—is a case in point. Those needing a more blatant example of societal evolution need only consider the last occupant of the Oval Office. What greater honor can be bestowed upon anyone to represent all Americans then electing that person to helm the country?

Speaking of obvious truths, the Cathedral Chapter's unfortunate determination is actually an insult to the gift, and the legacy, of the completely blameless United Daughters of the Confederacy (and a private benefactor). After all, they raised the funds and donated the windows to the church. Thus, for 64 years the Daughters' intention was to honor the past, not justify its mistakes. This fact was even acknowledged by religious progressive Gary Hall, the former dean of the cathedral, who stated in 2015 that the prominently placed panels signified a desire to “foster reconciliation between parts of the nation that had been divided by the Civil War.” Historically, that means the Confederacy’s descendants commissioned the windows as an act of contrition: to promote unity, and healing. In other words, precisely what Lee did during the Reconstruction Era. Therefore, what reflective message could be more appropriate in a hallowed space than that one? To the well-informed, removing the windows only abets ignorance of the past. Quite an “enlightened” decision in this topsy-turvy political climate!

Tragically such visual beauty has also become a Rorschach test for polarizing partisans in the MSM. For example, The Washington Post's Colbert King misconstrued:

“The solemn truth was inescapable: The windows honored a system that rested upon black subjugation and white supremacy. They were a stain on the cathedral and were, as the chapter’s removal resolution stated, 'inconsistent with [the church’s] current mission to serve as a house of prayer for all people'. ... They had to go.”

Interestingly, this columnist's spouse, Gwen, is a member of the Cathedral Chapter. She voted to strip the nave of these “offensive” artifacts, too. Given the Kings' collective advocacy of vanquishing the National Cathedral's “silent symbols of a bloody war fought to uphold a traitorous Confederacy rooted in slavery,” perhaps they should complain about the open display of crucifixes next? After all, didn't the Ku Klux Klan (read: the militant arm of Southern Democrats) habitually burn crosses to terrorize minorities? Aren't these archaic instruments of Roman torture as off-putting to the delicate sensibilities of their flock as their newly condemned windows?

As followers of Christ, what would Jesus do?

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

The Hidden Costs of Illegals

The distinction between legal immigration and illegal migration makes all the difference in the world. At issue is the American impulse to extend freedom, counterbalanced by the undocumented aliens' desire to usurp it. Thus, to consider what liberty means to us, we must directly reference an inspirational source:

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome ...

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

– From “The New Colossus” (1883) by 19^th century American poet Emma Lazarus

Based upon the above description, is it any wonder a more famous part of this sonnet—referring to “huddled masses, yearning to breathe free”—has been inscribed on a bronze plaque in the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty?

Inscribed since 1903 upon that monument, this message conveys a uniquely American spirit. It's defined by humanitarianism and economic generosity. In cultural terms, it has translated into our “melting pot” philosophy: a warm embrace of foreign-born citizens. Speaking of the statuesque and the great is our own current first lady, Melania Trump, born in Slovenia (formerly Yugoslavia). For any newcomer, who's a better symbol of the American Dream than she?

To that end, the U.S. permits more legal immigration than any other country in the world. That accounts for about 20% of the world’s migrants. For context, based upon available 2015 figures from Pew Research Center, some 43.2 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country. Add to that 277.7 born on native soil, and we arrive at 320.9 million: America's populace for that year. Given that the world's population then was approximately 7.2 billion, that means there's a 1 in 26 chance of being born stateside. Hence, not really good odds for the inhabitants of economically challenged Third World countries!

Yet, Liberty's “golden door” was never intended to be an open border policy. As a metaphor, that would be like throwing one's home open, at any time, to perfect strangers—allowing said “guests” to permanently reside—and expecting positive results. Compounding that disturbing dynamic is the general caliber of these criminal interlopers. For starters, they have already violated U.S. immigration law. Also working against them are cultural barriers, usually a lack education and specifically, English language proficiency. Even worse is an inability to find gainful employment legitimately. Under these obviously adverse conditions, is it any surprise that so many turn to crime to survive?

A recent government count of incarcerated aliens bears this out. As of June 24, 22% of the U.S. prison population, or 42,000, are in federal prisons. Per the Prisons Bureau, the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates (exemplified by Fiscal Year 2015) was $31,977.65. (Per inmate, per day, that's $87.61—or roughly 1.3 billion dollars per year!) Recall, per Social Security, the typical employee made $48,098.63 that year. So, astonishingly, housing a criminal cost 66% of what that average U.S. employee earned! And that is just the tip of the fiscal morass perpetrated by this shadowy underclass of 11 million squatters.

Globally, per the Washington Times, a new study from the Center for Immigration Studies finds they will drain nearly $750 billion from U.S. taxpayers over their lifetimes. That's six times the cost of mass deportations. However, the cost is more than strictly economic. As these aliens predominantly congregate in failed Democratic-controlled urban centers, like Chicago, San Francisco and Portland, is it any surprise that these sanctuary cities are hotbeds for criminality inflicted against the law-abiding? Tragically, that's seen most graphically in a one-man crime wave that is Mexican Sergio Jose Martinez, 31. Reportedly deported 20 times for progressively more serious offenses ranging from drug possession and burglary to auto theft and hit and run, he's currently accused of raping a 65-year-old Oregon woman as well as the same-day attempted kidnapping of a 24-year-old female while wielding a knife. If released again, will he cause the death of some innocent like Kate Steinle?

Meanwhile, House Bill 3464—a bill to expand Oregon's sanctuary status with no Republican support—sits on beleaguered Governor Kate Brown's desk. Specifically, the measure prohibits state and local agencies from sharing information with federal authorities, or inquiring about a person's immigration status except as required by state and federal law. The high profile brutalization of one, and the threat of bodily harm to another, has galvanized state Republicans. Senate Minority Whip Dennis Linthicum said:

“[Sanctuary states] excuse lawless behavior and perpetuate criminal, rape and gang cultures. Every Oregonian should be outraged to see criminals let loose into the streets. Career Democrats shouldn’t sacrifice Oregonians’ safety on the altar of their extreme political agenda.”

Unfortunately, as state Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and Governor Brown spearheaded this harebrained effort, it seems highly unlikely that mounting political pressure will suddenly compel a veto. Therefore, how are these Democratic leaders not indirectly complicit in Martinez's crimes? In any case, shouldn't public safety always trump their politically correct social engineering? Indeed, to be effective, our democracy requires acclimation to agreed upon laws, a common language, and basic standards of civilized conduct.

At every level of community—from the local to the state to the national—the United States is individually and collectively owned, and financed, by her citizens. Would progressive politicians host and subsidize the uninvited and the violent in their personal dwellings? Therefore, how is it not insanity for them to advocate free rein for the unvetted and the lawbreaking within America's homeland? In any case, the waste of U.S. resources to mitigate the fallout from Democrats' dytopian schemes is appalling. Still, at least that exorbitant expense is measurable. What isn't is the domino effect of illegals' criminality: the invisible human cost exacted by victims' anguish and suffering. That price—which liberals completely ignore—is incalculable.

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

Golfer Obama's Racial Cornflakes

“President Obama views everything through the prism of race. He's a race hustler. ... This guy could take a bowl of cornflakes with chocolate milk poured in it, and he could find some racist angle to it.” – Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke on this president's unwillingness to cut short his two week golfing vacation neither to condemn rioting and his city's burning by Black Lives Matter nor assist Louisiana flood victims (2016)

“I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that, but … Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody [fellow malcontent and friend Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.] when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” – Barack Obama on “racist” cops (2009)

While golfer-in-chief—and Tiger Woods wannabe—Barack Obama frolicked on a two week Martha's Vineyard vacation, most notably, a Louisiana flood caused 13 deaths, demolished 40,000 homes, and left 100,000 residents homeless. For a moment, consider the optics of any American president serenely at-play among pristine green, manicured links while his fellow citizens are bedeviled by a home-destroying natural disaster? What kind of amoral person is that? What other public servant would get away scot-free with this kind of nonchalant non-response on full display?

Given Mr. Obama's track record, his reaction is frankly no surprise. After all, this is the same “leader” who ignored the terrorist uprising that murdered 4 dead Americans in Benghazi (subsequently lying that the fictitious cause was an internet video). To add insult to injury, he chose to keep to his predetermined schedule then too: a next day Las Vegas fundraiser rather than deal with the tragedy. Almost eight years on, why should this “tiger” change his stripes?

He didn't and he won't. On that score, neither will similarly disinterested Hillary. To make an Obama-Benghazi parallel, both were off together fundraising during the flood's aftermath. She still hasn't made an appearance in Baton Rouge. She figures her phone call to the governor and a Facebook posting of “heartbreak” for Louisiana is more than sufficient. Once can reasonably infer her thinking, “At this point, what difference does it make?” Obviously, the disaster matters not at all to her or she too would be there. Moreover, I'd wager slim odds that this influence peddler's “charitable” foundation ever bothers to even cut a relief check.

Not even in office (yet), The Donald is already acting more appropriately presidential than both the current occupant of the Oval Office and the empty skirt hoping to replace him. Of the three, Mr. Trump showed up first, and in a timely manner. Of greater significance is the little-reported 18 wheeler of supplies he paid for and distributed. As with everything else, lying Hillary Clinton ignores truth. In last Thursday's Reno, NV speech she laughably still claims he's a “hater” of minorities. She said, “He [Trump] is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party.” As usual, she's got everything backwards, and needs to look in a mirror. The radical fringe is big government control progressivism that has metastasized the Democratic Party into something completely alien to JFK.

Deniers of Trump's philanthropy will simply state the obvious, that Trump's a rich guy with deep pockets. Yet, the Clintons are also uber-rich: per their tax returns personally worth $238 million. How much of that scratch will be similarly donated to the displaced, predominantly black community in Louisiana? You know, the same ones tee time Obama cares so “deeply” for—from the elitist playground of Martha's Vineyard?

Outspoken Sheriff David Clarke is right about Mr. Obama's jaded view of “colored” cornflakes. Progressives promote phantom discrimination for self-serving political polarization. That's why they regularly conjure racist bogeymen [read: white cops] out of thin air. In reality, a rare few exist in today's widely tolerant America. After all, does the social progress of two generations of now passé interracial marriage—and newly legalized gay marriage—mean nothing? Indeed, how can the American voters who freely elected a black man to the U.S. presidency—not once, but twice—be negatively influenced by his skin color? Such is the impossible charge repeatedly leveled by this deluded and hypocritical “leader” while he mindless enjoys “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.”

Barack Obama has covered his multitude of policy failures (and administration scandals) by habitually crying wolf. It's the utter misuse of the presidential bully pulpit as a change-the-subject political ploy (with the added personal benefit of keeping his identity-based constituencies artificially fired up to support him). Specifically, Mr. Obama has consistently highlighted isolated, tragic examples as “typical” of fictitious racial tension in America. Why else would he speak negatively of police officer Darren Wilson (later completely exonerated of any wrongdoing) at the international forum of the United Nations?

In the same vein, nobodies and thugs like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray are sanctified in death, distorted into empty symbols of a bygone Civil Rights era. For example, the narrative surrounding Michael Brown's 'hands up, don't shoot' never actually happened. But, the tall tale sparked the very real violence of Black Lives Matter anarchy. Thus, blameless cops have been executed (in New York and Dallas), rioting cities have been burned (Ferguson, MO, Milwaukee, WI and Baltimore, MD), and all along minority communities are played for fools. By margins as high as 90%, these dupes gratefully reelect their progressive oppressors. While they toil away in crime-plagued inner-city slums, Hillary “dead broke” Clinton is a corrupt jet-setter living in an elitist bubble of armed Secret Service protection, limousines, private planes and multiple palatial estates.

The only question that remains is whether she will eat Wheaties and take up Obama's rich man sport if elected, or nurse her well-deserved loss to Donald Trump with a bowl of politically correct fruit loops and racist chocolate milk.

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

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

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