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

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

Flying “So Sorry” Airlines

Like last Sunday's overbooked United flight 3411—delayed for two hours after a blameless passenger was unceremoniously dumped from his flight like rejected, oversized luggage—the overdue apology from United's beleaguered CEO Oscar Munoz finally arrived on Tuesday:

“I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right. It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again.”

Due to this self-inflicted public relations nightmare, United's stock is plummeting—and a boycott is being threatened. The recent loss of 1.1% of its value means $255 million has evaporated into the thin air of their less than friendly skies. Therefore, given Mr. Munoz's Johnny-come-lately epiphany, one is left to wonder whether he suddenly prizes his customers' welfare or just the corporation's shrinking bottom line.

Many on O'Hare's April 9th flight to Louisville are justified to remain cynical. Still, it's a relief that their “standard operating procedure” doesn't include heavies with badges manhandling a shrieking elderly doctor while dragging him from his seat and forcibly expelling him from an airplane. The married victim is identified as Dr. David Dao, 69, an Elizabethtown pulmonologist. (Interestingly and coincidentally, this physician also has a long criminal history of fraud, and trading prescription drugs for sexual favors with a male patient). In any case, the reality that he protested due to next morning hospital duties didn't dissuade the militant airline or jackbooted airport authorities. Did the three harassers wear brown shirts—and forget this is America—when they roughed him up?

The logistical problem started not from one doctor's resistance, but from the airline overbooking the flight. Four spots were needed for airline employees of an extra flight crew—so paying customers' needs be damned, right? Reportedly, an airline supervisor walked onto the plane and brusquely announced: “We have United employees that need to fly to Louisville tonight. … This flight’s not leaving until four people get off.” When the usual inducements such as $800 vouchers failed, four passengers were chosen at random. Only three complied. For the fourth, the police were called after Dr. Dao “refused to leave the aircraft voluntarily.” Unfortunately for the instigators, several passengers' cell phone videos of the incident have gone viral.

For example, witness Tyler Bridges posted his video to Twitter. Based upon his observation, “He said, more or less, 'I’m being selected because I'm Chinese.'” Educated in Vietnam, who would blame this traumatized doctor for having flashbacks of authoritarian thugs? From his window seat, two of the officers yanked him into the aisle while several passengers' “My Gods” reverberate. Dr. Dao goes limp when hitting the floor, his cell phone grasped in one hand. (Apparently, in the struggle he passed out after his nose impacted an armrest.) His glasses dislodged, his lip looking bloody, one of the officers pulls his dead weight by both arms down the aisle and out of the plane.

“No, this is wrong. Oh, my God, look at what you did to him!” exclaims one enraged female passenger over the din. Unfortunately, United CEO Oscar Munoz initial reaction did not concur. At the time, he demonized passenger Dao as “disruptive and belligerent”. Likewise, in an earlier statement Monday, he backed United employees, writing:

“While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right. ... Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.”

Frankly, one would expect this two-faced recipient of PRWeek U.S.’s Communicator of the Year for 2017 to do better. Speaking of seizing hands, they should confiscate Munoz's March 16 award. Likewise, Dr. Dao's attorneys should collect his yearly $6.7 million salary—and demand this CEO's immediate removal as the head of a now disgraced airline.

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 'Son' Seeks Blue Dress DNA

Danney Williams, 31, finally wants to prove who his big daddy is. Mr. Williams's lifelong quest for his famous father's acknowledgment has leapt right out of the supermarket tabloids—and Joe Klein's novel Primary Colors. With the emergence of yet another Clinton scandal one week before Election Day—this one Bill's now adult love child—the former president should hide all throwable objects from Hillary's legendary rages. Beyond seeing stars (with the tactile, painful memory of a broken White House lamp), the only primary colors Bill anticipates are the bruising kind: black and blue ones from the missus.

Recall, Primary Colors is the tale of a Clinton style southern governor (“Jack Stanton”) who successful run to the presidency is almost derailed by a sexual scandal—specifically an illegitimate multiracial offspring. In real-life are those two characters Bill Clinton and (the remarkably resembling) Danny Williams?

Yet, unfolding events are far more fascinating than Mr. Klein's fiction. Known to Mr. Williams is his mother, Bobbie Ann Williams, an Arkansas prostitute. Tuesday, at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC, Mr. Williams publicly requested some of the presidential goo (yuck!) from Monica Lewinsky via her infamous '90s blue dress. (Providing said genetic material would preclude a long and expensive paternity suit.)

So, once again, Bill and Hill have his and hers scandals to dodge. His is the embarrassment of two unearthed sexual indiscretions strangely merging: the Lewinsky affair (which led to Bill's impeachment) and Mr. Williams's bloodline (more ballast to crooked Hillary's fading presidential prospects). Hers is the reinvigorated Comey FBI probe involving top aide Huma Abedin's 650,000 emails (coupled with her estranged hubby Anthony Weiner's Zipper-gate). It's a wonder any of them have the gall to show their faces in public (let alone seek high elective office).

After Donald Trump's victory on November 8^th, the Clintons could appropriately do the lurid talk show circuit. On Jerry Springer Hillary and Monica could wrestle and pull each other's hair. Then for good measure the Clintons could be featured on Maury ('You are the father'). Lastly, Danney Williams could make a Barbara Streisand “Papa Can You Hear Me?” heartfelt plea for acceptance into the Clinton clan while Dr. Phil arranges an army of therapists to untangle the family dysfunction. 

This endless Clinton soap opera is indeed an epic farce. The tragedy for the American people is that one of them is currently a hair's breadth from the Oval Office. For all their lies and corruption both richly deserve the big house. From behind bars fate would bring everything full circle: the Clintons would get their comeuppance—and authorities could finally collect Bill Clinton's sought after DNA for his long denied 'Danney boy.'

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Weiner's Zipper-gate Is Clinton Karma

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

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

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

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

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

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

Director James Comey's unexpected announcement is a ray of light surfacing in the final days of the presidential contest. All ironically facilitated via two shady personas, a matching set of wieners named Weiner: her emails, his perversion. (What a poetic mirror for their scandal-embroiled Clinton counterparts!) For Comey's eleventh hour disclosure, a stirring, scandal fatigued nation will be grateful for a fresh start: a Donald Trump victory on November 8th.

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

Forgetting Clintons' Scandals with Trump's Words

“And all the kids [Democrats; biased MSM] cheered! But I didn’t cheer. I stood right up and started shouting. This isn’t what happened last week! Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn’t fair!” – Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes in “Misery” (1990)

Who among us would not agree that the contentious exchanges between insider Hillary Clinton and outsider Donald Trump have not been a “misery” (for the rest of us)? In different ways, the two candidates are a warped fun house mirror into the American political character—or lack thereof. Unfairly demonized in the press, Donald Trump's boorish playboy ways can easily be excused as red blooded carnal excess. Certainly, the bullish erector of phallic skyscrapers is no boy scout. So what? In presidential politics—as in real estate—neither arena is for the faint of heart.

Unless you're as newly delicate as Michelle Obama now claims to be. Suddenly she's a retiring flower, recoiling from the horror (the horror!) of Donald Trump's taped jocular language! One imagines many put-upon butlers rolling their eyes from coddling madame in her rarefied White House bubble. Which of her serfs fetched the industrial-sized smelling salts from 5-star chefs in the White House's kitchens to revive her?

Ah, designer duds Michelle. Apparently, her sensibilities are so much finer than ours; her troubles so much more severe! How she must have steeled her nerves to absorb Mr. Trump's locker room banter. Of course, it's just decade old words from a private conversation. But Michelle wants the Thought Police dispatched forthwith! How dare The Donald make such coarse noises! Michelle's rocked: 'shaken to her core.' Why is it that Mr. Trump's language staggers her, but not Bill's immoral sexual escapades, or Hillary's amoral lies or Server-gate criminality?

Consider the Obama daughters, Malia is 18 and Sasha is 15. Most mothers of daughters—especially gullible teenagers—wouldn't want a man of Bill Clinton's predatory history skulking around the White House. After all, Mr. Clinton did much more than simply talk: he acted out. For example, during his presidency he turned the Oval Office into a boudoir for adulterous trysts with Monica Lewinsky; then an impressionable intern just a few years older than the Obama girls.

How vigorously the MSM defended Bill Clinton's numerous affairs, his “bimbo eruptions” in the '90s as “just sex.” (Specifically, Hillary demonized Ms. Lewinsky as “a narcissistic loony tune” until irrefutable DNA evidence emerged from her blue dress.) Furthermore, during Mr. Clinton's impeachment proceedings how stridently the press argued that his private life had absolutely nothing to do with his ability to govern. And foolishly the public bought that real whopper of a fish story. Yet, in “Crisis of Character,” former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne directly observed:

“I witnessed firsthand the Clintons' personal and professional dysfunction: So consumed were they by scandal, so intent on destroying their real or imagined enemies, that governing became an afterthought.”

In retrospect of those scandal-plagued years Mr. Byrne's statement rings true. In the final analysis, has any politician been more directed by the orientation of his zipper than Bill Clinton?

So it is with crooked Hillary's lawbreaking, her greed and titanic lies. Once again, same as before, the legacy media is promoting Clintonian corruption as “no big deal.” This time instead of Bill's hanky-panky, it's Hillary's “damned emails.” Or is it lying repeatedly to Congress, the FBI and the American people? Or perhaps it's the pay for play influence peddling scandal via the charitable sham that is the Clinton Family Foundation? Is it really a good idea to put the most powerful country in the world in the hands of a person with no discernible moral code? What does Hillary Clinton really stand for besides her own lawlessness, recklessness and relentless self-promotion?

Any U.S. president to the electorate is very much like a de facto marriage. As an analogy, why would any sane person elect (or marry) “a partner” who cannot be trusted to act in the U.S.'s best interests? That's the existential question that has led to failed Obama's reelection—and threatens to derail the country entirely if Hillary Clinton replaces him. Facts are often not pretty things. From this two-faced Democratic triumvirate—if any of their lips were moving—when didn't they lie about something? That overarching dynamic has defined both Bill Clinton's and Barack Obama's presidencies. Why would Hillary's be any different? The scandals change—but the lying doesn't. That's what's truly inexcusable here. Beyond that, why is the public so conditioned to accept the big lie (after the dastardly deed)? More to the point: what insanity compels them to keep pulling the polling levers for these wrongdoers anyway? Is this the real-life mass amnesia Annie Wilkes complains about?

Why are Democrats forgiven everything while Republicans are given no latitude whatsoever? Still, no matter what the propagandist media reports, there remains a vast difference between Trump's words and Bill and Hillary's misdeeds. Annie's right: fair is fair. Only the deluded or the dishonest believe that either scandal embroiled Clinton is fit for office. And why should triviality automatically disqualify Mr. Trump? Certainly not his vocalizations: as unsubstantial as the hot air coming from his mindless detractors.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

Forgettable, Regrettable Republican Turncoats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Radioactive Hillary

It's as easy as yellow cake—highly prized uranium—to know which U.S. presidential candidate Vladimir Putin supports. Despite the MSM tall tale, that's not unpredictable, tough guy Donald Trump. If the Russians want to interfere in America's presidential contest, it's clearly in their country's best interest to support the one they can readily push around: lying, corrupt Hillary Clinton.

Unlike Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton has a well-established history of bartering high level government favors to specifically benefit the USSR. Therefore, Mr. Putin knows Hillary can be cheaply bought. As Mr. Obama's former Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton rubber stamped the Uranium One “deal” in which 20% of U.S. domestic uranium production was ceded to Kremlin control. Per a bombshell New York Times article back in April of last year, Canadian records show that Uranium One's chairman made four donations totaling $2.35 million to Mrs. Clinton's sham of a charity. A real windfall for the Soviets! If that payoff's not blatant enough, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with government ties promoting Uranium One stock.

That's Putin's big carrot to dangle before greedy, immoral Hillary anytime he wants something. After all, formerly “dead broke”—now part of the 100 million dollar club in less than 15 years—Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated as long as she's living as large as the billionaire class she aspires to, what does she care for the 93 million unemployed fellow citizens (read: the “little people”) left to foot the ruling elites' escalating spending, the nation's $19.4 trillion debt?

If the carrot mysteriously doesn't work, there remains for Mr. Putin a Trump card. A big stick: manipulation and blackmail. Recall Server-gate, Hillary Clinton's unsecured personal servers chock full of highly classified material and American secrets. Does anyone seriously believe that foreign powers like the Russians or the Chinese have not stolen those 33,000 deleted emails, and would not use that information against her (and us)? Donald Trump certainly thinks so.

Despite her repeated, pathological denials of any wrongdoing, she has committed treasonous acts more than once. As a true-life Orwellian Big Brother figure, Barack Obama not only doesn't hold her accountable for her clear law-breaking, but also he laughably promotes her as “most qualified” to proceed him. Thus, solely for personal gain—an ever growing slush fund accumulated via her bogus charity—Mrs. Clinton has permitted the foundational material used to make nuclear bombs to be monopolized by Russia? To further this nefarious equation, as the Soviets have business relationships with Iran—the greatest state sponsor of ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism—does it really take a nuclear scientist to connect all of these dangerous dots? What's to stop Russia from sharing its cache of American-acquired uranium with Iranian Imams (with their burgeoning nuclear ambitions and their desire to bend the will of the world to Islam)? Precisely nothing.

Hillary Clinton is a menace of the highest order. Make no mistake, she belongs in the big house not the White House. Seriously, should she be given free access to the “blank check” treasury—and the entire latitude of the U.S. government? Is branding—the irrelevancy of her husband's name—and the superficiality of her gender enough to reward this amoral creature with the keys to the kingdom? America doesn't need another polarizing, anti-American president. Likewise someone who promises a virtual Obama third term and a continuation of his eight disastrous years.

People complain about Donald Trump's unfiltered speech, but wholly ignore what Hillary has actually done? In the final analysis, what any person does is more important than what any person says. Given First Amendment protections of unpopular or controversial speech, no statement should disqualify any candidate from being president. Yet, based upon Mrs. Clinton concrete track record of unequivocal poor judgment and criminal misbehavior, she's not qualified to be dogcatcher. This is the truth despite her empty resume of impressive titles and her uncanny, Clintonian ability to slither out of multiple scandals.

Self-serving she has no love for America. Because of her lies, her unchecked lawlessness and her complete absence of moral fiber, she's a toxic candidate. Indeed, she's as dangerous and as destructive as the foreign hands now holding the radioactive uranium she sold access to. One can scarcely imagine the untold damage wrought on our country by this immoral influence-peddler from the Oval Office. Speaking of branding, the presidential ballot should come with a warning: the skull and crossbones symbol next to Hillary Clinton's name.

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

One Huckster Hawks Another

“I don't think there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.” — President Obama on Hillary Clinton

“His brain has not only been washed, as they say ... It has been dry-cleaned.” — Khigh Dhiegh, as Dr. Yen Lo from the 1962 classic film “The Manchurian Candidate”

If there ever have been two corrupt, amoral birds of a feather (not including hubby Bill), they are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. BHO's self-serving effort to sell her damaged goods (read: Benghazi, “Clinton Cash” influence peddling etc.) to the voters is a quid pro quo arrangement to preserve his disastrous legacy (which Donald Trump will undoubtedly undo). That is the primary reason Mr. Obama is endorsing unindicted liar Hillary. He, like she, cares not one whit about fate of America, only with retaining the presidency as a prize. They are two polarizing anti-American Sal Alinsky radicals playing a scripted political patty-cake. For them, it's all about incompetent (and/or corrupt) rule via acidic cultural destruction (read: social division by race, class, gender, orientation etc.). Make no mistake, the last 7 ½ years has been a progressive hellhole of their collective fascist design. They maintain political power indirectly by distracting the public (read: trivial bathroom issues), and directly by exploiting ancient white guilt and continuing black “victimhood.”

Mr. Obama is likely the worst president ever—up until 2017. A rudderless Western apologist and a hard leftist ideologue. At least America's first black president began as an unknown. An empty emblem that the American people foolishly pinned their idealistic hopes to. Yet, Hillary Clinton is a known quantity—and none of it is good. Indeed, 40 years of scandals and lawbreaking (read: unambiguous Server-gate criminality) rightfully dog—and define—her. Outrageously, Mrs. Clinton still has a real opportunity to take America to even more ruinous, unimaginable depths. It's a binary 50/50 proposition between her and Mr. Trump. No contest in modern times could be more clearly defined. An American cultural heartbeat as significant as JFK's Assassination or Reagan's Revolution. A fork in the road between outsider Trump's Reaganesque optimism versus insider Hillary's Clintonian cynicism.

The current empty suit that resides in the Oval Office pushes an empty skirt with only failure as their shared accomplishment. Likewise, he ran on the superficiality of his race, she on the triviality of her gender. At best, she's been a placeholder as secretary of state, junior senator from New York and 8 years as first lady. Perhaps no American politician has been more bought and paid for (by foreign and domestic interests). She views the presidency as her own personal garage sale—of American influence—to the highest bidder.

Washington Times columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. has aptly pointed out in “The Certifiable Candidate” that Hillary Clinton is a complete phony. He wrote:

“The blue of her eyes is, as with practically everything else about her, a studied fake. She wears blue contact lenses. Her blue eyes look a muddy brown without her cosmetic lenses. As for her “dyed blonde hair,” for all I know she is bald. When [Great Britain's foreign minister] Boris [Johnson] speaks of her putting him in mind of a “sadistic nurse in a mental institution....”

Is Hillary Clinton a real-life political version of Annie Wilkes (a psychotic nurse played to Oscar glory by actress Kathy Bates) in “Misery” (1990)? Well, the misery part of the Obama Administration (of which Hillary was a central part) is certainly true. To continue the analogy, do citizens comprising the languishing body politic really want someone who will double down on Obama's failed policies? Even worse, given her complete absence of character, would any sane person want her immoral, American-hating ministrations bedside for the next 4 or 8 years? Homicidal Annie Wilkes put it simply to her ailing captive, writer Paul Sheldon: “Because if I die, you die.”

The future of America hangs in the balance. So, too, does the freedom-loving Western world. Therefore, the price of electing another empty symbol of hypothetical “progress” is too high.

Donald Trump is the right person to be the next commander-in-chief. With a focused and practical workingman's vigor, he will restore domestic tranquility while rebuilding America's prosperity at home. Indeed, when one is the genuine article, respect is automatically and instinctively given. Thus, as projected light is to shadow, progressives like Hillary and Obama are exposed as the morally bankrupt fakers they are. Inert and useless fluff of unrealized dreams—and true-life nightmares.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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