Sanders’s Charade For President

In the American sense of the word, there is nothing “independent” about Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders; an outspoken advocate of bigger government, higher taxes and further income redistribution á la Obama.  As an avowed Socialist, his collectivist views are anti-Capitalist and antithetical to the American economic system.  With 93 million able-bodied Americans looking for full time employment— and uncounted by labor statistics­— a politician with Mr. Sanders’s views is too radical to be elected, even by loopy Democrat standards.  So why is such a wild card in the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president?   

Make no mistake: he of the little “I” by his surname is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party.  Indeed, he who regularly caucuses and votes with Democrats is a de facto Democrat.  In truth, Mr. Sanders is running precisely because he is unelectable.  His role in this Kabuki theater is to happily serve the collective: to be a smiling, friendly place holder to populate the stage during debates and in the press.  To this end, he has not and will not say anything truly controversial about Hillary Clinton as any legitimate contender would.  For example, the best Mr. Sanders can muster is milquetoast platitudes: “Hillary Clinton is a candidate, I am a candidate…. The people in this country will make their choice.”  The closest thing to a criticism thus far was calling Mrs. Clinton a “fence-sitter” on the Trans-Pacific trade proposal.  Mr. Sanders should know that fence-sitting— and going with the changing political winds—is the very epitome of Clintonian politics.

Mr. Sanders presence creates the illusion of a contest for the Democratic nomination—rather than a coronation—and makes Hillary Clinton appear more politically mainstream­—and therefore, more palatable to the general electorate.  The payoff to Mr. Sanders is increased personal visibility in the political conversation and a wide platform to promote his anti-Capitalist agenda.

On the other hand, with only three years of Senate experience under her belt Mrs. Warren is savvy enough to know that the voters are unlikely to elect another third year, neophyte, progressive Senator to the White House.  That's why she who claims to be “1/32 American Indian” will bide her time and cool her moccasin-adorned heels in the legislature.

Progressives like Warren and Socialists like Sanders are birds of a feather: both believe in the economic fantasy of “free” stuff—which is never really free—and is always paid for by someone else.  Hence, their policy of “free” tuition for students at public colleges and universities.  With typical Democrat blasé, they operate in a fiscal twilight zone (where debt and deficit spending don’t matter) and resources just drop magically from the heavens to serve their dystopian designs.  In essence they demonize “Paul” (Wall Street) to justify stealing from him (class warfare) in order to pander for “Peter's” vote.  Everything for Democrats revolves around garnering numbers for reelection: maintaining their own political power base.  In this case, that is exactly Mr. Sander’s underlying purpose: to get Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office.

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

Hillary breaks silence, offers platitude cake

To quote she who would be president in 2016—and has been skirting press questions for almost a month with a wink and a smile—Hillary Clinton was finally shamed into answering a few of the press' questions by Fox News reporter Ed Henry.  Her imperious, smirking response: “Yeah, maybe when I finish talking to the people here.  How’s that?  I might, I’ll have to ponder it.”  Then, pretending to write on a notepad, she added, “I’ll put it on my list for due consideration.”  In this, Mrs. Clinton finally deigned—under her own terms—to break her self-imposed silence.  This attitude parallels Server-gate (modern day Nixonian document shredding): her destruction of 33,000 emails—half of those created on her private server as Secretary of State—that she now infers is government property.  Indeed, for she who wants to sit in the big chair in the Oval Office, how can the American people objectively get a complete picture of her performance in that previous role with 50 percent of the picture forever obscured? 

Continuing to ignore the shrieking, chest-pounding 300 pound gorilla in the corner, Mrs. Clinton steadfastly refuses to finally address her own dismal record of veracity considering the still unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, the before mentioned Server-gate, and the most recent in a long list of Clintonian scandals, the multi-faceted Charity-gate.  Regarding the latter, she offered vague platitudes: “I am so proud of the foundation.  I'm proud of the work that it has done and is doing… I'll let the American people make their own judgments.”  Shadowed in this Clintonian malfeasance is the fact of 1,100 foreign donors mysteriously not reported by the Clinton Foundation; her and Bill's supposed family charity.  That little nugget comes literally right on the heels of Peter Schweizer's exposé of the Hillary Clinton-Bill Clinton fiscal shell game, "Clinton Cash," of bartering favorable U.S. government treatment through the State Department she headed (her role) to the mostly foreign donors who gave exorbitant, six-figure speaking fees to Bill (his role) or otherwise donated large sums of money to the charity á la George Stephanopoulos.

For any clarity at all, one must look to the Hillary speech the fourth estate has dubbed 'Bonds of Trust' for any indication of where she stands: "From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable." Yet, while she hypocritically pontificates upon broken trust between the black community and the police she completely ignores her own severe lack of honesty and forthrightness when it comes to explaining her own behavior and actions to the American people.

It is interesting dynamic when a politician with her own severe trustworthiness deficit lectures the rest of us on trust: "We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans.  Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society, restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets, between and among neighbors, and even people with whom we disagree politically."  So desperate is she to distract—and point the finger away from her own lack of character—that she, in essence, panders to the violent street mob and further galvanizes a volatile situation by demonizing the cops á la Obama.  Her and Obama's Saul Alinsky-style political smoke screens have a direct correlation to the tear gas in the street: this is what happens when those charged with safeguarding the country use the bully pulpit to foment anti-American sentiment and tear society apart along racial lines.

Apparently Mrs. Clinton, who like her husband before her, is inartfully combining the Clintonian mantra of "say anything to get elected" with the Obama brand of destructive, divisive Democratic politics of "never letting a crisis go to waste" for personal and political gain.  Through her Orwellian words, she claims the intention to unite, but in actually she desires the opposite: to polarize and divide.  She knows all too well that an unhappy populace votes Democrat.  Remember her and Bill's single greatest character flaw from which all their lies, greed and hubris stem: their obsessive self-serving power-seeking.

Her blasé, disingenuous Marie Antoinette 'let-them-eat-cake' persona demonstrates that she—who seeks to lead the rest of us—owes nothing.  In this, her silence bellows stentorian that she is unfit to be the next president of the United States.

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

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

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

In Hillary’s Orwellian circle of trust

To quote she who would be president in 2016, in a speech the press has dubbed 'Bonds of Trust:' "From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable." Yet, while she hypocritically pontificates upon broken trust between the black community and the police she completely ignores her own severe lack of honesty and forthrightness when it comes to explaining her own behavior and actions to the American people.

Ignoring the shrieking, chest-pounding 300 pound gorilla in the corner, Mrs. Clinton refuses to finally address her own dismal record of veracity considering the still unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, Server-gate (modern day Nixonian document shredding) and the most recent in a long list of Clintonian scandals, the multi-faceted Charity-gate.  This week's latest revelation of Clintonian malfeasance includes 1,100 foreign donors who were mysteriously not reported by the Clinton Foundation; her and Bill's supposed family charity.  That little nugget comes literally right on the heels of Peter Schweizer's expose of the Hillary Clinton-Bill Clinton fiscal shell game, "Clinton Cash," of bartering favorable U.S. government treatment through the State Department she headed (her role) to the mostly foreign donors who gave exorbitant, six-figure speaking fees to Bill (his role) or otherwise donated large sums of money to the charity.

It is interesting dynamic when a politician with her own severe trustworthiness deficit lectures the rest of us on trust: "We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans. Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society, restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets, between and among neighbors, and even people with whom we disagree politically."  So desperate is she to distract—and point the finger away from her own lack of character—that she, in essence, panders to the violent street mob and further galvanizes a volatile situation by demonizing the cops a la Obama.  Her and Obama's Saul Alinsky-style political smoke screens have a direct correlation to the tear gas in the street: this is what happens when those charged with safeguarding the country use the bully pulpit to foment anti-American sentiment and tear society apart along racial lines.

Apparently Mrs. Clinton, who like her husband before her, is inartfully combining the Clintonian mantra of "say anything to get elected" with the Obama brand of destructive, divisive Democratic politics of "never letting a crisis go to waste" for personal and political gain.  Through her Orwellian words, she claims the intention to unite, but in actually she desires the opposite: to polarize and divide.  She knows all too well that an unhappy populace votes Democrat.  Remember her and Bill's single greatest character flaw from which all their lies, greed and hubris stem: their obsessive self-serving power-seeking.

The first one strapped with the body cameras she now advocates should be Mrs. Clinton herself.  So the rest of us can monitor her.  A lie detector should closely follow.  If she can't pass that test then she has no business being the next president of the United States.

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

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

Thug: a four-letter thought-crime?

It seems no one in American society is neutral about four-letter words.  Some are admirable and all encompassing like "love," others are curses uttered in the throes of passion.  Today's watchword is "thug": an accurate term used to describe the lawless, rioting street mob who not incidentally are looting and otherwise trashing politically-controlled Democratic urban centers like Baltimore.  It is not difficult to read the cultural tea leaves when even America's first Afro-American president deigns to finally call a thing what it actually is (a true rarity for him) and gets criticized by the black community for committing a "verbal assault."  First Amendment protections guaranteeing free speech aside, the assertion of a "verbal assault" for unpopular language is the accusal of Orwellian "thought-crime" right out of the no longer so fictional "1984."
      
This fundamental transformation of America is the direct consequence of Barack Obama's "chickens come home to roost" (to borrow a popular phrase of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor and spiritual advisor of 20 years who from the pulpit advocated that black people should sing "God damn America.")   Six years in, through the smoky chaos that cannot obscure the truth, the American people see that Barack Obama's anti-American, anti-Establishment and anti-Law and Order policies mean "Burn cities burn."  

Perhaps Mr. Obama's greatest political sin—among a multitude of failures like an anemic American economy, a war torn Middle East and a soon to be nuclear Iran—is his refusal to lift up his own community who have suffered dismally under his administration.  Specifically, he has abandoned his political hometown of Chicago and completely ignores the weekly death toll of black young men (who would look like his sons if he had any) by their Afro-American fellows.  Per the Black Youth Project, there were more than 500 murders in Chicago in 2012: 108 of those victims were 19 or younger.  While Mr. Obama takes seemingly endless multimillion dollar vacations on Air Force One to tropical locales with ocean-front golf courses,  the bankrupt, Democratically controlled city of Detroit lies fallow; a shrunken dilapidated shell of its former automotive glory.  Though Mr. Obama took credit for the General Motors bailout that lost American taxpayers $11.2 billion, he has no plans to visit there or Baltimore; mere minutes away via Marine One, the presidential helicopter.  No, Mr. Obama has sent his point man on Ferguson, another reverend famous for race-hustling and unprosecuted tax evasion, Al Sharpton, to further fan the flames of unrest.

Baltimore, per the Daily Caller, eighth on the list of America's 10 poorest and 10 most violent cities run by the Left for decades—today's Ferguson MO— glows from burned out buildings and the artificial glare of mainstream media cameras.  To make matters even more volatile comes foot-in-mouth Democratic mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake who had the temerity to side with the "thugs:" “It was a very delicate balancing act because while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on — um — we also gave those who wished to destroy, space to do that, as well,” she said in all seriousness.  As a lawyer and a public servant, Ms. Rawlings-Blake should know the difference between lawful protest and criminality.  

Naturally, (per the three-year American Community Survey for the years 2011-13), the high unemployment rate of  37 percent for young black men between the ages of 20 and 24 and the 25% poverty rate in Baltimore isn't helping matters.  Given the widespread Democratic political race-baiting coupled with these woeful statistics, is it any wonder that the young, black and disaffected are fueling the continuing violence?

In a moment of clarity, Mr. Obama and Ms. Rawlings-Blake called these perpetrators "thugs."  But it remains to be seen whether they will actually do anything constructive about it or leave the heavy-lifting to the very capable and even-keeled Republican governor Larry Hogan.  Republicans like Hogan are private sector problem-solvers and have no use for four-letter words or to pontificate on the meaning of the word "is."  On the other hand, Democrats exploit or exacerbate societal problems—for political distraction and personal gain—that they have no intention of solving.  Political correctness and its latest iteration "thought-crime" demonize words and repress truths that make Democrats uncomfortable.  Hopefully, all of the Left's blaming, unfounded political finger-pointing is finally catching up with them.  In any case, Mr. Obama should not hypocritically denigrate others with four-letter words considering his own longstanding record of ultra-Constitutional thuggery.

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

Baltimore mom: momma bear not abuser

As a helicopter mom who frets over the risks of her own son playing football, Lonnae O'Neal, of all people, should understand—and appreciate—Toya Graham's righteous effort to rein in her son from the potential dangers of his own actions.  The Mother Graham of Baltimore did not, per Ms. O'Neal's skewed language, "beatdown" her son which implies the intention of abuse, domination and humiliation.  

Though I gather that Ms. O'Neal is not a regular church-goer, her historically rich column neglects to reference Proverbs 13:24 ('Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them') to glean the actual meaning and value of Ms. Graham's "moma bear" behavior.  To clarify, Ms. Graham's slaps were not borne out of repression, fear or violence, but out of a loving desire to literally "wake him up" to poor choices that the boy intuitively knew were wrong.  Why else would her son wear a hoodie and face mask to obscure his identity?

Beyond the standard things that every child needs like a loving family, a home, and a fully belly, every child needs to learn the boundaries of appropriate and safe behavior.  Indeed, that is one of the fundamental responsibilities of being a parent.  In psychological terms, children lack a development called the "internal parent," an invisible mechanism of the psyche that governs a mature adult's actions and ideally curbs his wilder or darker impulses.

Walking in Ms. Graham's shoes, in search of her wayward child among a potentially violent street crowd, this mother's act was wholly appropriate—even instinctual—to "slap some sense into him."  It was because she cares and never about causing pain or doing bodily harm.  This is the confusion that causes the columnist O'Neal her ambivalent stance on the matter.  In any case, the column concludes correctly that Toya Graham should not be demonized for what we can all agree was, in a moment of extreme stress, a very human reaction.

Re. "The Baltimore mom slaps her son for the ages," Lonnae O'Neal's Column, The Washington Post

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