McCain Kills Obamacare Repeal, Gridlocks Senate

Sen. John McCain typifies the dysfunctional U.S. Senate.

The 80-year-old flew 2,300 miles from Phoenix to Washington for an important procedural vote: simply to begin debate for the GOP's replacement bill for Obamacare (Vice President Pence broke the 50-50 deadlock with his tie-breaking vote). To a hero's welcome of universal cheers, McCain delivered a feisty 15-minute speech excoriating his colleagues' inaction. He criticized them for their partisan infighting, and for their inability to get constructive things accomplished. If that's so, hasn't this elder statesman been an integral part of that governing body for the last 30 years? Doesn't this former presidential nominee — the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services — bear some responsibility for Republicans' failure to deliver in 2017?

Stitched brow fresh from the surgeon's knife, his face full of righteous indignation, McCain bloviated. His voice conveyed a grandstanding message of unrealistic idealism:

“Let’s trust each other. Let’s return to regular order. We’ve been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. We’re getting nothing done, my friends. We’re getting nothing done.”

Speaking of achieving nothing, what was this “maverick's” next move? Utterly oblivious to his own advice, he voted against the “clean” Obamacare repeal. Recall that repeal is the fundamental step to finally kill this costly healthcare disaster. That must occur regardless of any GOP replacement still in the works. Specifically, doesn't Senator McCain's long-suffering constituency deserve real progress? After all, for them, Obamacare premiums have increased a staggering 116 percent! However, that's not this multimillionaire's problem: as a member of Congress he's exempted from Obamacare's vagaries. Furthermore, given McCain's own pressing health issues, where's his sympathy for those less well-situated then himself?

For seven years, the GOP has repeatedly promised the American people that they would rip out Obamacare “root and branch” once they gained control of Congress and the White House. Well, prettily perched, there they sit. Six months has elapsed while Congressional Republicans dawdle. Yet, the clock is rapidly ticking to the midterm elections in 2018. On Wednesday, seven betrayed that long-standing pledge, joining all Democrats to defeat a straight repeal bill. For context, with the exception of Susan M. Collins (R-ME), six voted for the 2015 Obamacare repeal that was subsequently vetoed by President Obama.

Unfortunately for Republicans, history has shown how easily disenchanted voters dispense with them when they don't keep their word. A case and point was one-termer George H. W. Bush. Recall his empty one-liner, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” That capitulation cost him reelection. Likewise with healthcare reform, GOP dithering will likely cost them their slim majority in the Senate next year. As Republicans are acting indistinguishably from Democrats — as blatantly demonstrated by John McCain — what good are they?

All is now jeopardized within this contentious political landscape. Still, what's clear is that Republican legislative efforts consistently garner zero support from Democrats. Therefore, how is one supposed to “work across the aisle” — as McCain admonishes — with the obstinate and the intractable? After all, as Democrats jammed Obamacare down the unsuspecting throats of the American people in 2010 — with no Republican support — why shouldn't any replacement follow suit?

For starters, McCain's “wishful thinking” isn't a practical or effective strategy. What is is publicly calling out Democrats: for their party caused this healthcare fiasco. What's worse is their complete abdication of responsibility, and their utter lack of cooperation now. In response, political hardball is required. For a cue, the senator need only look to President Trump's comments from July 18:

“It would be nice to get Democrat support but really they are obstructionists. They have no ideas. They have no thought process. All they want to do is obstruct government and obstruct period. In this case, think of it, so many good things we didn’t get one vote and their plan has failed. And, by the way, Obamacare isn’t failing. It’s failed. Done.”

Liberals' unyielding mind-set is absolutely incongruent with basic American ideals like liberty and self-determination. At least in theory, that's why Republicans value individuals over government. By contrast, progressives expand the state to compel social and political change. Wasn't Obamacare — a government takeover of 1/6 of the economy — precisely that? Given all these facts, why would any Democrat support the GOP's floundering efforts to unshackle healthcare from its centralized, bureaucratic controls?

One can neither bargain with fate, nor deny what is self-evident. Sorry Senator: advocacy of “compromise” with progressives is a proven nonstarter. Another lame tactic — shared by McCain's fellow RINOs — is the self-defeating notion not to vote for repeal until a replacement is fleshed out. What's the point of voting for formal debate — but against meaningful repeal? To that end, McCain put an early morning shiv in the GOP's latest Obamacare repeal known as the stripped-down “skinny” option. Needing 50 votes to advance, it only received 49. Once again, Trump's 2:25 AM Tweet of July 28 says it all:

“3 Republicans [McCain, Collins and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)] and 48 Democrats let the American people down. As I said from the beginning, let ObamaCare implode, then deal. Watch!”

This veteran of Washington gridlock — and those who follow him — have likely gifted the chamber to Democrats' hands in the next election cycle. Yet, whether that happens or not, they have wounded the American people by blocking every offered healthcare solution. Today, thanks primarily to John McCain, disgusted millions who placed their faith in Congressional Republicans have ample reason to feel blue.

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

Guarding Charlie's Life

“Why gamble with money when you can gamble with people's lives?” – high-powered lawyer Martin Vail played by Richard Gere in “Primal Fear” (1996)

What a heady power for a judge to hold the fate of terminally ill infant in his hands! If he wishes, this black robed figure may act as a state-sanctioned, de facto Grim Reaper. Should a British barrister—not a doctor, not the child's parents—be the ultimate arbiter of life or death for an innocent?

At issue is the welfare of 11-month-old Charlie Gard, born on August 4, 2016. Beyond being deaf, blind and severely epileptic, he's so infirm he cannot breathe without the assistance of a ventilator. Charlie's debilitating genetic condition is so rare there are only 16 reported cases worldwide. His malady—a RRM2B mutation of Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome (MDDS)—saps the vital organs of energy, causing progressive muscle weakness, loss of motor skills and brain damage. Hence, any further treatment is experimental; and only available in the United States with emergency FDA approval.

Ironically, the therapy for Charlie would be a simple oral medication. While not reversing any brain damage, it could help to manage Charlie’s symptoms and increase his life expectancy. Medically speaking, the treatment is a long shot, as acknowledged by Charlie’s mother Connie Yates, 31. She pleaded with the judge, “Ten percent. You would if it was your son, wouldn’t you? Well, precisely. Complicating matters is the fact that the medicine, beneficial to other children less afflicted, has never been tried on a patient as ill as Charlie. Essentially, British socialized medicine is currently “treating” Charlie like a prisoner. They want him to “die with dignity” and refuse to release him to his parent's care.

This tragedy has become a political firestorm reaching around the globe. In America, President Trump and members of Congress have weighed in. Specifically, Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and Trent Franks (R-AZ) are planning special legislation to make Charlie Gard a lawful permanent resident of the United States. All in the hope to increase Charlie's chances to receive treatment stateside. Likewise, Pope Francis has offered a Vatican passport, and access to the Vatican hospital. Before any of that can potentially happen, Judge Nicholas Francis must make his final determination. Reportedly, that will happen by July 25.

His current position (read: the state's) bars travel, and authorizes London's Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) to remove Charlie from life support. Justice Francis previously said, “Although the parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best interests.” In my view, that's an impossible standard to meet; especially under these heart-wrenching circumstances! Therefore, only informed medical opinions will be offered—in other words, educated assumptions—nothing more. What an ego-trip for this judge to play God like Martin Vail! What of the age-old natural right of any parent to preserve the life of an offspring? Should that biological impulse be superseded by the flawed human perception of one wigged stranger in High Court silks?

Up until this point, his parents have moved metaphorical mountains to assist their ailing child. For example, they collected 350,000 signatures asking the hospital to release their son. Also, they set up a GoFundMe campaign, raising the equivalent of more than $1.7 million dollars to pay for Charlie's medical care without further burdening the British health-care system. Fortuitously, a U.S. hospital has even offered to give Charlie free treatment if he is able to relocate here. Given all of these positive developments, Charlie's mother is hopeful, “There’s 18 children currently on this medication [nucleoside bypass therapy], they’re all getting stronger, they’re all getting better. It’s a miracle what happens.”

Perhaps the miracle will take the form of Dr. Michio Hirano, a neurologist at New York's Columbia University Medical Center. He will consult with Charlie's doctors in London on Monday. In the interim, Hirano told the judge that a MRI scan of the baby's brain did not necessarily indicate structural damage. Per CNN, he stated there was an “11% to 56% chance of clinically meaningful improvement” in muscular function with the new therapy. Furthermore, this expert stated that keeping Charlie on a ventilator would not contribute to his problems because he did not appear to be in any significant discomfort.

Only three months of treatment at Columbia University will determine whether Charlie is improving. Thus, the old adage: “While there's life, there's hope.” Certainly, dealing with such grief and adverse circumstances is enough for any parent without the additional stresses of an intransigent hospital—and an ongoing legal battle. Even if those hurtles are overcome, Charlie's father, Chris, 32, is realistic about the equally daunting future medical challenge. He said, “If there is no improvement we will let him go. We just want to give him a chance.” Just the basic freedom to decide what’s best for their own child.

As the bill-sponsoring U.S. Congressmen said in a joint statement, “Should this little boy to be ordered to die—because a third party, overriding the wishes of his parents, believes it can conclusively determine that immediate death is what is best for him?” Hence a universal lesson is gleaned: government-run, nanny state medicine fails compared to the patient-centered variety. That's because the state imposes itself where it has no business being. Matters of mortality should remain with individuals and their families—not judges, bureaucrats and politicians.

Witness the danger of all-powerful governing bodies! The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) refused to intervene, and the British courts have previously sided against Charlie's parents. Politically, aren't these imperial powers equivalent to the autonomous attorneys populating the 115^th U.S. Congress (read: 167 members of the House (37.8 percent) and 55 Senators (55 percent))? Once again, lawyers—not doctors (only 14 physicians in Congress: 11 in the House, 3 in the Senate)—are determining a gerrymandered replacement for ObamaCare. Like mute and helpless Charlie, our health-care system hangs precariously in the balance. For better or worse, its destiny also in the wrong hands of the powerful and the political.

Our best solution, like Charlie's, is a long shot. Congress should return our society to free market, privatized medicine. The kind that existed pre-Obama: before progressives used government to seize control of 1/6 of the economy. That liberation of doctors and patients might save patients like Charlie Gard—and perhaps the rest of us as well. A gamble best left to those directly involved, rather than the state and its autocratic representatives.

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

Trumpmageddon: Swampy Democrats' Waterloo

“The Liberals have not had a new idea since the last Ice Age; and nowadays the mark of a true Liberal is not so much his adherence to a coherent agenda but the intensity of his angers and the alacrity with which he urges impeachment proceedings against a conservative president at the least provocation.” – “The American Spectator” editor in chief, author and columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., “The Conservative Crack-Up” (1992)

The Washington establishment is glacial in its permanence; defined by its “swampy” unwillingness to conform to the will of freedom-loving people who elected a true outsider to the presidency in 2016. Given scribe Tyrrell's above insight, who's not today instantly reminded of Democrats' rabidly anti-Trump rhetoric (abetted by entrenched, weak-kneed Republicans)? For context, his prophetic genius was actually penned over 25 years ago. It refers to liberals' unjustifiable angst over another political upstart: Ronald Reagan. Besides that commonality, Donald Trump has another Reaganesque connection: he appropriated his predecessor's patriotic 1980s slogan, “Make America Great Again”.

In order to “M.A.G.A.”, as “The Great Communicator,” Reagan utilized Oval Office addresses to speak directly to the American people. Thus, he circumvented the cacophony of Washington naysayers, and the largely unfavorable spin of the legacy press. For that same purpose, President Trump uses Twitter, the 21^st century equivalent. For his part, Reagan was constantly belittled and attacked for opposing liberalism. Isn't the left's farcical charge of Trump campaign collusion with Russia the same thing? To that end, on June 15^th, The Donald tweeted:

“You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history—led by some very bad and conflicted people!#MAGA”

Trump's “bad people” have reason for concern: their candidates are 0-5 in special congressional elections. If political hell is an “Ice Age”—a Siberian wasteland for the sidelined—this is squarely where Democrats find themselves. President Trump, as Reagan before him, is leading America despite the raging opposition. Hence, liberals' overblown response, a new political malady known as “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. But, what else are backbenchers bereft of constructive ideas to do? They have reconstituted Barack Obama's buck-passing “blame Bush” strategy: a distraction from their own obvious policy failures.

Combine progressives' toxic track records with their equally hateful rhetoric—as epitomized by the last administration. That, in turn, has inspired their alienated, self-radicalized followers to perpetrate violent and murderous acts. As a case and point, why else would a Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, attempt to massacre a group of Republican lawmakers at a Virginia baseball park on June 14^th? To that end, Tyrrell's ironically titled Washington Times column of June 21^st, “Just another well-intentioned progressive,” addresses that disturbing incident. Once again, his spot-on assessment is both startlingly predictive and illuminating:

Actually, that Hodgkinson is pretty much a standard-issue progressive ought to give everyone the creeps. … [T]he “angry left”.... has been on a steady evolution toward homicide like what Hodgkinson undertook last week for years, and there are a lot more Hodgkinsons out there than we care to contemplate.”

Well, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. would know, wouldn't he?

What he wrote in 1992 is a snapshot of today's vanquished progressives: all bluster and bravado, signifying nothing. Lacking a platform, their divisive party has rotted to its core. Unless one considers the superficiality of identity politics, or grievance culture, a cohesive agenda. Is it any wonder they're so grossly out of touch in the Trump Age? Clearly, “Resistance” is a slipshod political strategy; as unlikely to bear fruit as their much beloved impeachment fantasy. Besides gridlock and dysfunction, what do they offer? Once again, Tyrrell's prescient words concerning liberals' shenanigans are as true now as they were during Reagan's era:

“They gave themselves over to innuendo, misrepresentation, and slander; and the conservatives sat quietly by with the American people witnessing an increasingly lurid spectacle.”

How is that not a blueprint for progressives' anti-Trump tactics of 2017? Democrats driven around the bend by those over the hill: Hillary Clinton, 69; Bernie Sanders, 75; Elizabeth Warren, 68; Nancy Pelosi, 77 (and for good measure, Joe Biden, 74). For the “iced” left—led astray by political dinosaurs—Tyrrell brilliantly proves the past truly is prologue.

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

June 12: A Love-Hate Date

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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