Like Elvis, “clock boy” has left the building

Under Obama, a record number of Americans have renounced their U.S. Citizenship. Some don't bother with that formality and simply leave.  Among that number is teen hoaxer, Ahmed Mohammad known by his internet nickname “clock boy.” He of 15 minute millennial fame has fled to Qatar—an Islamic totalitarian state—for freedoms apparently no longer found here. Interestingly, this decision came just 24 hours after personally meeting with Mr. Obama. Indeed, after lavishing such public praise—via Twitter: 'Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It's what makes America great'—the loss of Ahmed's so-called scientific “genius” is something he must privately bemoan. But, like Mr. Obama's “chicken little” obsession with weather, this trivia is the least of our country's many woes.

Snap! Even dissed by a 14 year-old Islamic boy. Despite Mr. Obama's clear pro-Islamic bias, the admiration is historically never mutual (much, I imagine, to his private frustration). If only Mr. Obama, a two-term U.S. president, would show such impassioned fidelity to average Americans and Christians, in specific. In any case, Ahmed Mohammad's sudden flight is an interesting commentary on Mr. Obama's political radioactivity as the worst-ranked living U.S. president.

This unprecedented migration is a direct consequence of Democratic leaders' bold-faced lies and anti-American policies causing our ever-dwindling fortunes, widespread societal chaos and the dimming of the long-term prospects of this nation. Since when has the politician's big lie become “no big deal?” While Richard Nixon turns in his grave, that has certainly been the case during the 7 years of the Obama administration. And while Mr. Obama—like his prodigal “clock boy” wunderkind who took the money and ran—so too will Mr. Obama take the taxpayer-funded largesse of his presidential pension and likely retire to some exclusive golf course laden enclave of the uber-rich. However, as past is prologue, current Democrat-created circumstances do not portend good things for the rest of us.

Indeed, Obama—who only praises all things big government (anti-Capitalist), Islamic and/or scientifically backwards—perhaps could join scholarship-awarded Ahmed at the Qatar Foundation of Education to teach U.S. Constitutional law; no doubt an elective class subservient to Sharia law. Ahmed created a crock (not a clock) and the same thing can be said for the disastrous Obama presidency.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

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

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

Interracial marriage: a big deal now?

Interracial marriage was indeed a hot-button issue in America—in 1958. With the aptly named Lovings—a white man, Richard, married Mildred Jeter, a black woman—in violation of Virginia state statutes against miscegenation. Undoubtedly 57 years ago racial tension was a seemingly insurmountable issue reflected by novels like To Kill a Mockingbird (1960) and in film with “Guess Whose Coming to Dinner” (1967). Contrast that to 2013 when a record-high 12% of newlyweds married someone of a different race, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of census data. So, in light of a factually-supported more open cultural dynamic why is Washington Post columnist Lonnae O'Neal—apparently stuck in a time warp—writing about it in now?

As Bob Dylan prophetically sang of social mores in 1964, “The Times They Are A-Changin.'” And they have to an amazing degree with a black man cooling his heels in the Oval Office for 7 years and minorities at all levels of American society. Today, for example, it would be unconscionable for public opinion to condemn interracial marriage or children of mixed parentage (who tend genetically to embody the best of both). And while there will always be unfortunate, isolated circumstances to this obvious societal trend (as the divided family Ms. O'Neal highlights) one must recall that gay marriage has recently been embraced in all 50 states. In any case, however one evaluates others' marriage choices, to be black in America—compared to past generations long gone—is beautiful.

Naturally, per First Amendment guarantees of free speech (which in particular protects unpopular views), differences of opinion are healthy in a democracy and all should be respected. Therefore, individual bigotry is to be pitied as a throwback exception to our society's 21^st century rules of widespread tolerance. Ms. O'Neal's bumbling attempt to trumpet the rare exception as more than it is is nothing but the vain creation of a tempest in a teapot.

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

Blowing dollars: Obama's, politicians' choicest drug

Will the schizophrenic man who has theoretically been “in charge” as president (but is apparently not responsible for anything, ever) please step forward for his psychotropic medication?  Once again, Mr. Obama single-mindedly pontificates about race and income inequality.  This time at a West Virginia town hall meeting, poverty was cited as the primary casual factor of that region's skyrocketing drug epidemic, highest and double the national average: 33.5 fatalities per 100,000 people.  His also-ran Democratic non-solution response that always compounds every problem—a hallmark for Mr. Obama's dytopian administration: more government spending, this time on treatment centers and “training” for doctors.  As if our beleaguered, highly educated physicians don't have enough to deal with already related to Obamacare: socialized, costly medical bureaucracy that has gutted the best medical system in the world.  Likewise, spending a record 8 trillion under Mr. Obama's oblivious watch which threatens to sink America into a permanent Greek economic morass.  (In concrete terms that's more debt than every president combined over 227 years from George Washington and the inception of the republic to Bill Clinton.)  Is this what Mr. Obama meant by his cryptic reference to the “fundamental transformation of America?”  Who knows?  7 years in to this total debacle, the powers-that-be in the MSM have yet to questioned him about it.

Indeed, with Biden's exit stage left from a White House bid (and Hillary circling the presidency with the inevitability of a vulture) what difference at this point does it make, right?  None to Mr. Obama who is content to kick-the-can down the road to the next undoubtedly headache-prone occupant of the Oval Office.  In truth, his denial—a complete, deep-seeded almost pathological disconnect from his actions and their real world consequences—an unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious connection between his extreme environmental policies that have dismantled the coal industry and with it any hope of American energy independence (read: the Keystone XL Pipeline).  Better to monetarily submit to Islam by funneling U.S. resources into that Middle East powder keg borrowed at interest by our Communist banking masters in China.  As bad as the drug epidemic may be in West Virginia it pales in comparison to politicians in Washington of both parties who treat the American dollar like an endless supply of crack cocaine.

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

The secret meaning of debate handshake

As Tuesday's overly chummy Democratic sham of a “debate” demonstrated Bernie Sanders is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party. Why else would he leap to a spirited defense of scandal-ridden front-runner Hillary Clinton? Before shaking hands with a grinning Hillary—no symbolism of collusion there—he said:

“Let me say something that may not be great politics, but I think the secretary is right, and that is the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your [Hillary's] damned emails!”

In any case, in the American sense of the word, there is nothing “independent” about Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders; an outspoken advocate of bigger government, a 90% tax rate 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 which laughably report 5.1%— 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 plant for the Democrats. 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 Democrat's collective: to be a smiling, friendly placeholder 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 changing political winds—is the very epitome of Clintonian politics.

Mr. Sanders's colorful 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-American agenda.

Socialists like Sanders believe in the economic fantasy of “free” stuff—which is never really free—and is always paid for by someone else. Hence, his policy of “free” tuition for students at public colleges and universities. Likewise, Clinton believes in cradle to grave government dependence though “free money” welfare programs like the ever-expanding food stamp rolls. With typical Democrat blasé, these birds of a feather operate in a fiscal twilight zone (where an 18 Trillion dollar 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. Sanders’s underlying purpose: to get Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office in 2016.

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

JFK Democrats no resemblance to Obama, progressives

President JFK once famously said, “But I dream things that never were—and I say: 'Why not?'” Today's progressive, Democratic party—and their propagandist creature, the MSM—twists perceptions of truth with the same ease and disdain as it would JFK's inspiring words of leadership into: “I habitually say things that are untrue—and never were.” It is the oxymoronic concept of “leading from behind;” the abdication of responsibility by those who would lead, but are incapable of accepting the inherent responsibility (and veracity) that comes with the job. Indeed, irresponsible power wielded without the check and balance of law promotes widespread government corruption and ultimately degenerates society into chaos. How far America has fallen in a mere 7 years. Ring any bells for anyone?

Serious character flaws notwithstanding, that is the underlying reason for Obama's (and Hillary's) bold-faced dishonesty with the American people wholly ignored (or greatly diminished) by an abetting MSM. The political optics of promoting “big lies” always serves the modern-day Democrat's primary purpose of self-promotion: maintaining and/or expanding personal political power via overreaching government “control” and the corresponding erosion of individual freedom and liberty. That is why the powers-that-be in the Obama Administration disregard the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights with such maddening regularity. We are literally and metaphorically as a “House of Cards,” just waiting for the next inevitable crisis or worse, some real-world eventuality like widespread domestic terrorism or violent insurgency. Historically, America threw off the yoke of British imperialism for far less than what Obama and his ultra-Constitutional minions have done collectively behind the shield of faceless big government on almost a daily basis.

Based upon results, 7 years of observation demonstrates that Mr. Obama is clearly out-of-his-depth. Couple that community-organizing incompetence with a profound anti-American ideology and one sees a man who has skated through the presidency leaving disasters at home and abroad in his golf-playing wake with little more than a winsome smile, his ethnicity, and a detached coolness that appeals to gaff-prone Joe Biden as well as empty-headed millennials who don't differentiate between style and substance. Whatever is behind the mask of his public persona may never be fully known. One can only infer what his private belief system actually is (or name for God he uses) and how that practice informs his life's perceptions. However, contrast Mr. Obama's supposed Christianity with Mr. Carson's authentic example and the truth—very much like the soft-spoken retired neurosurgeon himself—is quiet and plain. In any case, Mr. Obama is a Machiavellian leader of capricious whims: exactly what did America gain from normalizing relations with the brutal, repressive Castro regime after 53 years? By the sum of Mr. Obama's words and deeds, Mr. Kennedy could not fathom such a person as a Democrat let alone a two-term U.S. president.

Despite the shifting sands of the political landscape, proof to Mr. Kennedy would be Mr. Obama's wholesale embrace of the dictator Castro brothers. In retrospect, his views would make JFK a mainstream Republican of today especially in light of his emphasis on public integrity and fiscal conservatism. Indeed, Mr. Kennedy would not recognize what his Democratic party has metastasized into: anti-American progressivism so extreme that an unapologetic socialist, Bernie “90% tax rate” Sanders is mounting a spirited campaign on the Democratic side for president in 2016. Could one imagine what passes for current would-be Democratic “leadership,” the “madhouse” of Hillary, Obama, Biden or Sanders being taken seriously as presidential contenders in JFK's day? Not a chance.

Today, there is no daylight between mainstream Democrats and their unchecked, socialistic authoritarianism where the State, not the individual, is king. Undoubtedly, Kennedy was pro-government programs—but as a means of their original intention, temporary assistance—not what they've mutated into: multigenerational economic cradle-to-grave government dependence. Kennedy wanted to create economic circumstances conducive to his fellow citizens reaching their individual potential. However, progressives à la Obama and his fellow Democrats want just the opposite: to bring everyone down to the same basic level of subsistence with all economic power and decision-making flowing like manna from a centralized, autocratic government they helm. To them—this elite ruling class of “public servant” influence-peddling millionaires beyond the fray—it is better to reign in America divided against itself, distracted by blame. This is the true meaning and purpose of Obama's “fundamental transformation” of America. His Orwellian desire, it seems—for which he unfortunately has had an astonishing degree of success—is to cripple our democracy into a Third World hellhole similar to that of his Indonesian childhood. In this, he is not only anti-Kennedy, he is also anti-Reagan's view of America as a way-showing, First World shinning city upon a hill. To make a political analogy, Obama progressives wish to extinguish Lady Liberty's flame by covering her with the muzzling black robe of the Burka, the Muslim women's garb of silent submission to Islam.

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