Fuzzy Words Hide Shady Leftists

“I was not aware of any Communists at Fort Roach*, although there were several gentleman of the extreme left … who called themselves 'progressives', a term I subsequently learned was the Party's code word for true believers.” – Edmund Morris, Pulitzer Prize winner and author of “Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan”

*The First Motion Picture Unit of the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) during World War II (installed at the dormant Hal Roach Studios in Culver City, California) in the 1940s

As disclosed by biographer Morris, the label progressive is leftist code for an adherent of communism. Yet, communism's collectivism diametrically opposes American principles embodied by individual liberty. In short, such oil and water philosophies don't mix. What's misleading is the root word of progressive happens to be “progress”. So, it's easy to assume that both terms mean the same good something. (After all, in this technologically driven age, who's not in favor of advancement?) Yet, progressivism is destructive in its practice, and backward in its orientation. In reality, it fails everywhere it's tried. By almost every objective measure (with the anomaly of a flourishing Wall Street), President Obama's progressivism was ruinous for America. Specifically, the economic albatross of a record-shattering 9.3 trillion added to the national debt was no accident. Likewise, leftist leadership turned oil and diamond rich Venezuela into a hellhole where basic necessities, like toilet paper, are scarce. Democrats typically use such nebulous, good sounding language to conceal their real anti-American intentions. For example, their knee-jerk advocacy of “investment” in some fashionable cause. That's just doublespeak for raising taxes and growing government. Such poison pills only undermine our nation's solvency, and future prospects. For these wastrels, it's better to rule in a leftist hell—propagated by their political pandering and cultural divisiveness—then serve in heaven as pro-American constitutionalists.

In the same vein, political movements with the word “Democrat” in them are usually totalitarian: as the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea. Certainly, no lover of civil rights, and human freedoms, are they. For proof of Kim Jong-Un's liberalism, who can forget the tragic fate of American student 22-year-old Otto Warmbier? For the college prank of foolishly attempting to steal a propaganda poster this future ivy leaguer was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Fifteen months later he was returned to the United States in a vegetative state. This coma—the result of likely torture—led to his premature demise; a young man in full flower cut down. What a waste of potential, what a senseless loss of life.

Speaking of destroying life of accused agitators on foreign soil, how about Barack Obama's Orwellian-style “disposition matrix”? This was the former president's secret kill list: a database of suspected terrorists to be dispensed with, either targeted in drone strikes, or captured and interrogated. How is that nihilistic system not equivalent to the barbarity of the Kim regime? In fact, some of Mr. Obama's quarry were even American citizens! The horror is that guilt or innocence didn't matter. The accused were deprived of their lives without due process: that means no right to legal representation and a fair trial, and no judgment by a jury of one's peers. From on high, what a megalomaniac thrill to play God!

That's not the only similarity between the leadership in North Korea and today's Democrats. Both groups use demonizing rhetoric against their perceived adversaries. Specifically, reported by FoxNews.com on March 7^th, the former instruct their people to call Americans bastards. How is Hillary Clinton's repudiation of Trump supporters as a basket of deplorables any less hateful and derogatory? The 2016 presidential election ended over 16 months ago, but she's still spewing venomous blame. In India, this foul-mouthed “feminist icon” smeared the married, white women who didn't support her. Outrageously, she implied they were mindless chattel: incapable of acting independently of their husbands, bosses or sons. So much for this skin-deep “champion of women”.

With all leftists, freedom of thought is vehemently suppressed because it departs from the Party's official position. On every issue under the sun, conformity of perception is paramount. What liberals say is “right” in this moment can be completely the opposite of what they stood for yesterday. Even writers David Nakamura and Ed O'Keefe of the highly partisan Washington Post acknowledged:

“In 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Secure Fence Act, a bill that authorized the construction of hundreds of miles of fencing along the border. That legislation was approved with broad bipartisan support, including, in the Senate, by such Democratic luminaries as Barack Obama (Ill.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), now the Senate minority leader.”

In 2018, that's The Donald's border wall. Yet, so afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome are they, progressives automatically oppose what they previously supported—under the previous two administrations. As masters of the political flip-flop, hypocrisy and self-interest define them (read: Crooked Hillary).

Thus, proponents of the left—regardless of their particular stripe—demonstrate a jackbooted impulse to dominate others. In common, each ruling class controls via a herd mentality. Unchecked, the Worker's Party of Korea (WPK) can govern by overt force. Meanwhile, dissembling Democrats weaponize their words to incite protests. Sometimes these “social justice” movements metastasize into mob violence (read: Black Lives Matter). Yet, either by force or by fearmongering the left advances its un-American notions. These exploitative elites preach inclusivity while repressing and actively dividing.

These true believers, as Hillary and Obama, are oblivious to patriotic Americans' views or problems. They're insulated creatures of the Washington establishment; buoyed by their hard left extremism and access to governmental influence. In truth, they care nothing for their fellow citizens' freedoms (particularly the Second Amendment), and actively work to subvert them. As a parallel, their mindset is epitomized in “Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith” (2005) when the Republic becomes a dictatorial galactic empire:

“So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause.” – Padmé Amidala (played by Natalie Portman)

As “Democratic” leader Kim Jong-Un is a scourge upon the world stage, progressives are a cancer upon the American body politic. Acting and speaking with the same anti-U.S. malevolence is clear—regardless of what commonality their fuzzy labels are designed to obscure.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

Identity Politics Fouls American Melting Pot

Given the range of human behavior and perception, it's a social and romantic myth that “opposites attract.” In fact, it's likely a subconscious tendency for people to associate with others based upon superficial commonalities like ethnicity. All value judgments aside, its root is likely an ancient survival instinct. (Something that has nothing to do with hate or racial discrimination.)

This impulse emerges from one's family unit, building outward to larger circles of shared interests via common language and cultural experiences. In turn, these “specialized” factions form the matrix of vibrant communities from the local to the state level and beyond.

Still, there always remains some psychological tension between the individual desire for independence—versus any group's desire for uniformity. However, even in the case of identical twins, diversity is still seen in distinctive personalities. Thus, achieving a balance between all of these forces—where difference is as respected as sameness is embraced—is the foundation of any healthy and prosperous society.

In the modern age, freedom of thought, lifestyle and religious expression defines the West. Specifically, this is why America is the envy of the world: why people from distant shores—and diverse backgrounds—flock to live here. Yet, today, the vital mechanism that makes all of this work is under constant attack by Democrats' progressivism. Their words imply: 'come to the U.S. and impose your origin country's values even when they diametrically oppose our traditions'. Hence, Garrett Hardin, Ph.D. (1915 - 2003), ecologist and social scientist, cautions:

“Diversity within a nation destroys unity and leads to civil wars. Immigration, a benefit during the youth of a nation, can act as a disease in its mature state. Too much internal diversity in large nations has led to violence and disintegration. We are now in the process of destabilizing our own country. The magic words of destabilizers are ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’.”

Positive differences—same as new ideas—remain wonderful, and necessary things. Indeed, both add “spice” to any human interaction or evolving relationship. But, identity politics preys on those dissimilarities, exploits them for the ruling class's self-centered political ends. So, liberals subtly promote their Big Lie of the “bad American”: the dominant culture (read: white folks) perpetually victimizes minority groups because of their differing external appearance. Scurrilously, Democrats imply a deep-seated intolerance in our daily lives that does not exist. To add insult to injury, they pretend that those they claim to champion are somehow helpless or inferior. In reality, anyone can realize the American Dream with hard work, and a little luck.

Capitalism is the basis of America's economic strength—embodied by the good, but often stylistically mercurial President Trump. For context, his attitude of U.S. victory contradicts that of another recent political upstart: socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Unlike Trump's motto of “America First”—based upon private sector investment and expansion—Sanders peddles big government intrusion as the “solution” to society's woes. In retrospect, as a harbinger of failure, was it any surprise that Bernie was swept into office during the 110^th session of Congress: when polarizing Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became House Speaker, and the legislature fell under total Democratic control?

Since that time, what of the nation's metastasizing debt—nearing 20 trillion under liberals' (and RINOs') inept ministrations? Does any clear-thinking person still buy the Washington swamp's narratives? For one, President Ronald Reagan certainly didn't. Back on August 12, 1986 he said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

Absurdly, “helpful” progressives act as if all non-whites have a built-in ax to grind because of their minority status. So, if something goes wrong for them, fault is always “elsewhere”. In fact, identity politics only gains traction because liberals, via the MSM, manipulate the low-information voter into believing he or she is aggrieved. As a case and point, if this is not so, why are they so busy fracturing the country over mute and harmless Confederate statues—otherwise completely ignored for generations?

Democrats' fiery rhetoric is stirring America's melting pot to the boiling point. Most eloquently, Suzanne Fields of The Washington Times recently wrote:

“Now we’re embroiled in domestic wars of a different kind and the younger generations challenge democracy from within, even marching against free speech, making the protection of the fragile First Amendment ever more difficult.”

When free speech is repressed—as it is now by unhinged leftist mobs—an angry and frustrated environment encourages the generalized use of fists rather than words. Remember, these purveyors of alienation want chaos, open borders, lawlessness, and most of all, tribalism. What's absolutely alien to them is the American motto e pluribus unum: out of many, one. The underlying reason for all of their destructive vulcanization is simple: a happy electorate votes for Republicans.

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

Blaming Others for Dastardly Deeds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

What Triggers the Mob

How can the removal (or destruction) of any external object purge the human psyche of a disgraceful mind-set like racism?

Recall that all history is a series of discrete events locked in time: unchanging and unalterable. Therefore, today's revisionist fervor directed at America's antebellum past is misguided. Like amber dating back 100 million years to the mid-Cretaceous period (proving Tyrannosaurus rex had bird-like feathers), would it be right to destroy a specimen simply because the subject could evoke some existential human dread of prehistoric monsters? An absurd example that makes an important point: Confederate statuary, like dinosaur bones, only demonstrate the existence of a thing. Yet, meaning is inherently fluid: applied in the now by the living.

To eradicate historical artifacts in the name of progressives' “progress” is jackbooted fascism. It's the real-life manifestation of George Orwell's “1984”. Specifically, Big Brother is the identity politics-obsessed Democratic Party. Their creature is the violently inflamed street mob: faceless, mindless and everywhere. One prominent example is Black Lives Matter who on August 29, 2015 publicly proclaimed, “Pigs [cops] in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” On CNN, this lawless group was praised by Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson who said Wednesday, “The people that we claim, Black Lives Matter, the antifa movement, and so on, are interested in preserving the fabric of America.” So, exactly how does a cop-killing advocacy group “preserve” American society?

Democrats demonize today’s law enforcement officers—simply for wearing a uniform (and perhaps carrying a gun)—as indiscriminately as long-dead American icons. Telling examples are found in the murder capital of Chicago. Instead of spotlighting the skyrocketing death toll, the aggrieved and clueless like Bishop James Dukes, pastor of the Liberation Christian Center, has asked the mayor's office to remove monuments to two U.S. presidents including Founding Father George Washington. Even worse, a Chicagoean malcontent has vandalized a giant bust of Abraham Lincoln—our slavery-abolishing 16^th president—with a flammable spray. Thusly, President Trump's Thursday Tweet is prescient, “Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson—who's next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish.” What's foolish is in the name of “tolerance”, the intolerant constantly attack the undeserving, then as now, as “racist” bogeymen.

Anti-American anarchists populating the left thrive by causing chaos and disruption. Their whack-a-mole strategy is based on a fundamental flaw of reasoning: that the inanimate—especially what they label triggering symbols—can be blamed for flawed human choices that constantly mold society. Hence, their fascist impulses to prohibit what's objectionable only to them: guns, cops or Confederate figures. Yet, none of these groupings automatically cause problems. In truth, almost anything physical can be weaponized. For instance, would Virginia be wise to ban all cars because one crazed individual, James Alex Fields Jr., 20, killed Charlottesville resident Heather Heyer, 32, with his silver Dodge Challenger?

What plagues our culture are Democrats who exploit various tragedies for their own divisive political ends. They don't see the evolved reality of the melting pot that is 21^st century America. For them and their followers, individual responsibility is nonexistent. Instead, liberals promote victimhood narratives—eagerly embraced by those easily manipulated by fictional offenses—to incite actual violence.

Simply as a record, history deserves to be protected because all men are fallible, and wrongdoers exist in every age. The mistake our generation is making is focusing on them instead of their hateful modern-day equivalents.

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

Clinton Caused Korean Crisis

If David Keene's column (“Making the best of a bad nuclear hand,” The Washington Times, 8/15/17) on North Korea was analogous to a play, it would focus on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern while disregarding the story's lead, Hamlet. Indeed, the mysterious figure central to today's Asian travesty—and wholly unmentioned—is Bill Clinton, circa 1994. Recall some 23 years ago, Slick Willie entered into a $4 billion agreement for U.S. aid to Kim Jong Il's regime. The stated goal then was to “end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.” Given the threat now presented by Kim Jong-un: whoops!

Isn't it important to mention the person most directly responsible for getting America into this international quagmire?

Instead, Mr. Keene focuses on trivial players: Democratic National Committee Deputy Chairman and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, and Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser and U.N. ambassador. For his part, Mr. Ellison is the former co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. For context, at a town hall meeting in Jensen Beach, FL, ex-congressman Allen West said on April 10, 2012:

“I believe about 78 to 81 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

Given Ellison's murky background—whom Mr. Keene pegs as a fool—why quote him? Likewise, speaking of untrustworthy Democratic mouthpieces, is Susan Rice. Remember Benghazi and “Sunday Susan's” multiple claims that the consulate attack was the result of an internet video. Why waste time on those with zero credibility, as she, while letting another politician surnamed Clinton go scot-free?

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  

Washington Swamp's Russian Fever

Supposed “Russian interference” is the Democrats' morning-after poison pill for the results of the 2016 election. From November 9 onward, this narrative has been intended to undermine Donald Trump, and hamstring his “Make America Great Again” agenda.

Unfairly, the liberal MSM has rabidly embraced wild-eyed supposition based upon unsubstantiated innuendo. Its underlying purpose is a face-saving measure to distract from the complete repudiation of progressives' eight years of failures. This effort also had the immediate benefit of painting responsibility-phobic Hillary—and her Democratic fellows—as victims of an “international conspiracy”.

Given this contrivance, one is reminded of Mrs. Clinton's outrageous January 27, 1988 claim of a “vast right wing conspiracy” against her presidential hubby for his adulterous affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Then as now, a pattern of pure fiction spun as a distraction for Clintonian misdeeds. Specifically, during the last election cycle, what of Hillary's less than truthful answers; her highly suspect decisions related to her Server-gate scandal; her influence-peddling Charity-gate dealings; her obvious deficiencies as a politician?

Unfortunately, the entrenched Washington establishment has used this political smoke and mirrors as a feeble excuse not to pass meaningful legislation. That means both parties. On one hand, Democrats take up wasted space in Congress, filling the air with anti-Trump rhetoric. On the other, Republicans sit on their hands, ignoring their languishing seven-year pledge to repeal and replace ObamaCare. These dysfunctions epitomize “the swamp” President Trump is working mightily to drain.

Ah, the idle political class—typified by poster boy Paul Ryan (R-WI). He stated on May 17, 2017, “It is obvious there are some people out there who want to harm the president.’’ As he acknowledges this is the case, why not put a stop to months of nebulous, fruitless inquiries? With no evidence—and no end in sight—why do GOP enablers facilitate a huge distraction from the successful agenda the president ran on? Is it political cover for their own fecklessness?

For historical context, recall Mr. Ryan's acceptance speech as House Speaker on October 29, 2015:

“But let’s be frank: The House is broken. We are not solving problems. We are adding to them. And I am not interested in laying blame. We are not settling scores. We are wiping the slate clean. Neither the members nor the people are satisfied with how things are going. We need to make some changes, starting with how the House does business.”

Doe-eyed Ryan promised a “fresh start,” but delivered more gridlock. Conciliatory lip service notwithstanding, what of his results? Likewise, what of his Senate counterpart Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)? Both seem to have an innate aversion to taking the political heat leadership requires. In large part, this ire comes from collectively intractable Democrats. Yet, where is their consensus building within GOP's ranks? Given the rejection of the status quo articulated by the last election cycle—why hasn't either man forcefully defended the president? Why haven't they told Congressional Democrats to stow their obstructionist carping? As a touchstone, why wasn't the ObamaCare repeal bill ready for President Trump's signature on day one: January 20, 2017?

After all, the Republicans ran against the healthcare debacle for years. Precisely as establishment Democrats, Congressional RINOs played politics to gain legislative majorities. Now, after six months of a new administration and GOP dominance in Congress, what do Ryan and McConnell have to show for it? The American Healthcare Act (AHCA) barely passed the House, 217-213 and may not pass in the Senate. How's that for snatching failure out of the jaws of victory? Indeed, if McConnell's minions don't coalesce behind the president's policies forthwith, they will be “swamped” by Democrats eager to replace them in 2018.

It's not the Trump campaign that needs attention here, but Hillary Clinton herself. Specifically, as then Secretary of State, she rubber stamped the Uranium One “deal” in which 20% of U.S. domestic uranium production was ceded to Kremlin control. In exchange, the now defunct Clinton Foundation received four donations totaling $2.35 million. A real Soviet windfall! If that's not blatant enough, Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with government ties promoting Uranium One stock. So, who has Russian ties and likely colluded? That's clear to anyone not subscribing to the Democrats' dishonest “red scare”. A politically expedient bogeyman spawned by do-nothing Republicans and corrupt liberals' wishful thinking.

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

Why Democrats Love Illegals

Twice failed candidate Hillary Clinton received more votes than any unsuccessful presidential candidate in U.S. history. In the 2016 election, she garnered 2.9 million more votes than then President-elect Donald Trump. Her popular vote tally was 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%.), or a 2.1% differential. Back on November 27, 2016, Trump tweeted, “In addition to winning the Electoral College [304 to 227, needing 270] in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” On balance, that's likely true.

How many of Hillary's ballots were cast illegitimately? Outrageously, that's still unknown. Yet today, the jaw-dropping actuality can be reasonably inferred. To that end, Just Facts, a New Jersey research organization and conservative/libertarian think tank, suggests that millions of illegals vote in U.S. elections. Specifically, their analysis of 2008 data from an extensive Harvard/You Gov survey indicates that 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered to vote—and 594,000 to 5.7 million did so. These figures support a previous Old Dominion University study in which professors and co-authors Jesse Richman and David Earnest stated that as many as 2.8 million interlopers voted. Why is this obvious problem—a fundamental threat diluting the people's voice in elections—“nonexistent” for Democrats?

There's a mutually beneficial relationship between progressives and criminal squatters who vote. Via shared governmental largesse—as examples, direct welfare and/or indirect free public school education—the latter achieve a better standard of living than their point of origin. Meanwhile, statistically, Democrats have a built-in voting bloc despite their odious, out of step policies. Why else constantly encourage, and defend, this shadowy influx of 11 million illegal lawbreakers? Likewise, given the common occurrence of terrorism around the globe, why similarly promote unchecked migration, lax law enforcement and borderlessness?

The only logical reason is personal payoffs for the elite ruling class. Politically, enough warm bodies voting to keep limousine liberals perpetually in office. After all, their ilk doesn't experience the general chaos of street violence in Democrat-run sanctuary cities. Moreover, they don't care about exploding deficit spending; and they don't cover the cost of catnip benefits drawing persons like a magnet from impoverished southern countries.

Why does any of that matter to uber-rich progressives epitomized by “biggest loser” Hillary? Besides votes, don't they also need low-wage workers to do the menial jobs in their gated, safe palatial estates?

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

GOP Blood Flows On Patriotic Day

A historically pro-American day—June 14^th—has been marred by the leftist violence of a lone gunman with the blood of innocents spilled. Previously, this date was a celebratory one: the 100th anniversary of Flag Day, the 242^th year of the founding of the U.S. Army (motto: “This We'll Defend”)—and for good measure President Trump's 71^st birthday. Who will remember any of that after Wednesday's incident?

All these reasons for joy have been overshadowed by the wielder of a semi-automatic rifle—an outspoken campaign volunteer for (Democrat colleague and socialist) Bernie Sanders (I-VT)—who shot at some 25 Republican Congressman, and staffers, at Simpson Park in Alexandria, VA. Per law enforcement, the deceased suspect is identified as James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, IL, 66, the former owner of a home inspection business. His reported 10 minute melee happened just after 7 AM EST in which some 60 rounds were fired. The attack disrupted the Republicans' baseball practice for an annual charity game with Democrats. Held Thursday night at Nationals Park, this 108 year tradition, started in 1909, was interrupted by the Great Depression, World War II, and a brief pause from 1958 to 1961 as the event was thought then to have become “too physical”. Speaking of risk to life and limb, eyewitness Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said to MSNBC, “Had they [Capitol Police] not been there, it would have been a massacre.” Ah, the obvious value of armed good guys when those present would have otherwise been sitting ducks.

The two-person protective detail would not have been there except for the fortunate attendance of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). This circumstance prevented what very likely would have been a killing field. Unfortunately, Mr. Scalise was shot in the hip, has been hospitalized for surgery, and remains in critical condition. Likewise shot were police officer Crystal Griner, Congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika, before Hodgkinson's threat was nullified.

On March 22^nd, this assailant wrote on Facebook, “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” In retrospect, Hodgkinson apparently meant that statement literally. Instead of accepting the peaceful results of the ballot box, he picked up a weapon and specifically targeted a group of open-air Republicans. Per CNBC, Congressmen Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) described an encounter with the perpetrator who asked them if those practicing were “Republicans or Democrats” before the shooting. DeSantis—when shown a photo of Hodgkinson—confirmed he was the man who approached them.

Connecting the dots, how can this carnage not be politically motivated? Moreover, how is this attitude not, for example, reflective of the The Washington Post's anti-Trump masthead motto: “Democracy Dies in Darkness”? Yet, the MSM is not the only element doing the ongoing agitation. For example, speaking at the LGBT for Hillary fundraising gala in New York City back on Sept. 9, 2016, Clinton said:

“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, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given [them] voice.... He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

How's that not an incendiary and hate-filled call to arms, of sorts? An unfortunate hangover of the polarization that defined the Obama years. Frenzied Democratic sentiments—typified by Hillary's—have long sown the seeds of discontent and alienation. Clearly, they have fostered this antagonistic political environment; contributed mightily to Wednesday's horror directed at Republicans. Fast-forward to 2017—and cloying Hillary's divisive drumbeat continues. On May 2, 2017, this ultimate Washington insider stated, “I’m now back to being an activist citizen and part of the resistance.” Laughably, she's an “outsider” now? Progressives, as she, intentionally use fiery language in the same spraying, destructive manner as suspect Hodgkinson's projectiles.

As a rule, conservatives don't solve their political disagreements with firearms and bullets. Why do liberal political leaders universally blame the gun? Former Clinton fundraising bagman and current VA governor Terry McAuliffe knee-jerk reaction was:

“There are too many guns on the street. We lose 93 million Americans to gun violence a day.” (The flummoxed politician repeatedly misspoke, meaning only 93 victims per day.)

Why do Democrats en masse—entirely and perpetually—ignore the pivotal reality of the user? Make no mistake, in righteous hands guns make society safer. They deter criminality and limit human causalities. That was conclusively demonstrated here. To that end, two armed heroes saved many lives otherwise lost in that early morning ambush. The only person posing a danger was an unhinged supporter of Democrats. He was likely inspired to kill Republicans because of liberals' unrelenting, uncivilized rhetoric.

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

Brainless Griffin's “Headless Trump”

Is the abhorrent image of a “blood-soaked decapitated head” resembling President Donald Trump “art”? This visual horror is suspended in the air invoking the classic image of Perseus holding Gorgon Medusa's head. It's the kind of ugly propaganda one would expect from a proponent of radical Islamic terror, not self-proclaimed “D-list” comedienne Kathy Griffin, 56. This unapologetic liberal—an outspoken Trump critic—obviously subscribes to Irish dramatist Oscar Wilde's axiom: “There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” Among those taking notice is the Secret Service, charged with evaluating all perceived threats to any U.S. president. One of the agency's tweeted responses: “Threats made against @SecretService protectees receive the highest priority of all of our investigations. #ProtectionNeverRests.”  That's territory well beyond the controversial. That's an idiotic foray into the foolhardy.

As Griffin's now on the Secret Service's radar, she's been on the fringe of Hollywood celebrity for a long time. For context, she's a less successful contemporary of has-been pop singer Madonna. Like the middle-aged “Material Girl” (most famous for her recent public utterance, “Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”), Ms. Griffin's attention-grabbing militancy has utterly overshadowed her considerable comedic talent. That ability has resulted in notable past successes: she's won two Emmy Awards for her reality TV show “My Life on the D-List” and is one of only three women to win solo Grammy Awards for comedy. What she's known for today is this odious, anti-American political antic.

These days it's a rarity for the left and right to agree on anything. Yet, both sides widely condemned Ms. Griffin's publicity stunt. While morally challenged Hillary Clinton has remained tellingly silent, even her daughter Chelsea tweeted, “This is vile and wrong. It is never funny to joke about killing a president.” For comparison, let's consider an unthinkable scenario. What if vanquished Hillary had won the 2016 presidential election and a famous conservative had held her “blood-drenched severed head” in effigy? Better still, imagine the crazed and violent reaction of leftist political radicals if the likeness had depicted a “decapitated Obama”? Thus, how could the measure of Ms. Griffin's outrage be made any more plain?

How could this public figure—this veteran of naked self-promotion—not predict the thunderous backlash? (President Trump being defended—by any Democrat, for any reason—is disorienting stuff indeed!) So far Ms. Griffin received little more than a few slaps on the wrist. Per Variety Magazine, she's been fired from her ten-year gig as the co-host of CNN's annual New Year’s Eve program with anchor Anderson Cooper. Likewise, a couple venues on her Celebrity Run-In Tour in Albuquerque, NM and Grass Valley, CA have canceled scheduled appearances. Yet, counterbalance a few days of lost work with the media bonanza of numerous internet stories—and blurbs on the nightly news!

In her defense, Ms. Griffin (unlike Madonna) quickly apologized on Tuesday for the uproar she caused. Naturally, this provocateur enjoys First Amendment protections for her inflaming shenanigans. And as her comedic signature is known for brutal honesty, perhaps her posted mea culpa is genuine. Still, whether that's true or not, isn't really the point: TMZ reported Wednesday that President Trump's understandably panicked 11-year-old son Barron thought the horrifying televised image featuring Griffin was real.

How could this innocent know any better? Unfortunately, he was in the family's New York City penthouse with first lady Melania Trump, not in the White House. In any case, she released a statement that goes right to the heart of unhinged progressives' thoughtless tactics:

“[That photo] makes you wonder about the mental health of the person who did it. As a mother, a wife, and a human being, that photo is very disturbing. When you consider some of the atrocities happening in the world today, a photo opportunity like this is simply wrong.”

To that end, per Fox News, one is automatically reminded of 119 wounded and 22 killed, including many children, at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester on May 22^nd. Did the world really need the made-up gore Ms. Griffin peddled?

Unfairly, this reality TV star has benefited from Barron's suffering—and the presidential family's collective disgust. The fact remains that Kathy Griffin's gone viral in a way that the infamous Oscar Wilde of the 19^th century could not fathom. Hence, this social media firestorm is a good effort for the woman whose shtick includes such gems as, “Well, I've been trying to sleep my way to the middle for my whole career.” Although said in jest, Ms. Griffin's self-serving ploy of “cutting edge” pop culture infamy is accomplished.

Whatever the ultimate consequences—good or bad—this agitator's made her bed. A raunchy bed she alone must sleep in.

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