Hillary's House of Lies

“It is not fair to blame Clinton for this particular high-handedness—she was not involved in this discussion [related to the use of her own private server]... [or] in creating this climate of [State Department] acquiescence.” - The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus

Right out of the gate, Hillary fallaciously claimed the server was Bill's. Let's recall reality, the facts Ms. Marcus is completely oblivious to. In September 2015, Mrs. Clinton then told NBC's Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”: “[The server] was already there. It had been there for years. It is the system that my husband’s personal office used when he got out of the White House.” Unfortunately for her, Mr. Clinton's habit of not using email had already been disclosed to the WSJ that previous March: “The former president, who does regularly use Twitter, has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president, says Matt McKenna, his spokesman.” (It doesn't take a rocket scientist to logically infer that Bill Clinton probably doesn't like keeping physical records of his activities. Perhaps a understandable bias developed from his intern-chasing Monica Lewinsky blue dress days?) In any case, in this latest version of the big lie, Ms. Marcus contents herself not with blaming Bill, but faceless flunkies at the State Department.

Of all the confederacy of dunces at The Post, this columnist should read her own newspaper, specifically the Taking Exception editorial “What secrets are hidden in Ms. Clinton's emails?” by Michael Canes of McLean. He writes:

“The Post should probe the email issue much more deeply. And it needs to question whether Ms. Clinton, having abandoned her responsibilities with respect to email communication while secretary of state, is still a qualified presidential candidate. It may conclude that the alternatives are worse, but it shouldn’t turn a blind eye toward how badly Ms. Clinton has betrayed the public trust and how much more dangerous the email issue [stolen state secrets] may yet turn out to be.”

However, Ms. Marcus is doing the opposite—her darnedest to spin Hillary's leaden political prospects into fool's gold—that the electorate ain't buying. And that, certainly, is an errand of a colossal dupe. For the law in this matter is crystal clear: under Title 18, Section 1924, of federal law, it is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and imprisonment for any federal employee to knowingly remove classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.” Contrast that unambiguous statute to the schizophrenic tone of Ms. Marcus's latest column. A missive so tortured, nonsensical and bereft of reason it would give the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland” pause. Specifically, her “journalism” is so yellow she is nothing more than a propagandist talking head for the Clinton campaign, reiterating the same bold-faced, threadbare lie that Mrs. Clinton's email server was set up to keep her personal emails private. This is the same tall tale Hillary's been spouting for over a year. Pick your Clintonian poison pill as explanation: her actions were approved by the State Department, other Secretaries of State had “done the same thing,” that she wanted the convenience of accessing all data on one device. Make no mistake, she's Frank Underwood (played by Kevin Spacey in “House of Cards”): a real-life F.U. in a skirt.

So the State Department's own inspector general's report of Mrs. Clinton's clearly forbidden and blatantly law-breaking activities isn't a smoking gun? If that's not unequivocal evidence of wrongdoing to the shockingly thick Ms. Marcus, what, if anything, is? She can't recognize truth or relevancy here with a GPS and a divining rod. Ms. Marcus quotes a trivial Hillary email, her “I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible,” as a spurious distraction from the patently indefensible. For Ruth Marcus, the Democratic front-runner has suddenly become Greta “I want to be [left] alone” Garbo. Speaking of “smoking guns,” did anyone put one to Hillary in her relentlessly single-minded pursuit of ever higher government posts? Like Mrs. Clinton's loony imitation of a small yelping dog, the political spotlight has been her personal chew toy for the last 25 years. Therefore, she knows very well that privacy is the cost of public life. (Let's all cry a river for Mrs. Clinton's “sacrifice.”) More common sense that utterly escapes Ms. Marcus's baseless scribbles.

Hillary, this rules-don't-apply-to-me queen bee, is imploding under the weight of her own Server-gate scandal. In this regard, Mrs. Clinton's actions—whether intentional or not—are beside the point. A now more and more likely national security breach by criminal hackers and/or foreign powers is deadly serious. Therefore, it's far more than simple “bad” judgment or a violation of protocol, it's treasonous.

Mrs. Clinton doesn't belong in the White House, she belongs in the big house. Thus is humpty dumpty tumbling from her most lofty perch: the Democrats' nomination for president. And just like the fairy tale, all the king's horses (read: Mr. Obama) and all the king's men (read: the sycophantic MSM's Marcuses of the world) can't put ol' cracked, crooked Hillary back together again.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

'Cross-dressing' Captain America

Published on May 25^th, just in time for Monday's Memorial Day, comic book fans can morn the fundamental transformation of another decades-old symbolic hero in Captain America: Steve Rogers #1. It turns out that even a fictional hero of Americana on paper isn't safe—even when he's a super-soldier patriot wearing a uniform of stars and stripes. In this latest version, Steve Rogers still wears the traditional red, white and blue garb, of course, but he's really an agent of Hydra (an authoritarian terrorist-criminal-paramilitary organization bent on world domination)—and has been since childhood. Of this big reveal Marvel Executive Editor Tom Brevoort stated, “[He's] the real Steve Rogers [and not] some clone, shapeshifting Skrull, Life Model Decoy or a Cap from an alternate universe.” (Well, isn't that reassuring?) So, he didn't fight Nazis in WWII—as the original tale goes—he was one!

Steve Rogers survived many hardships like medical experimentation and an iceberg's suspended animation freeze. Yet, he was no match for an artist's appropriation of his myth—thereby proving the pen really is mightier than the sword. This comic book debacle is an eerie parallel to current political events unfolding in Japan also related to WWII. Specifically, another representative of America, a global apologist “double agent,” is currently cooling his heels in Hiroshima (site of the world's first atomic strike). He also wears the traditional “uniform” of the West—sharp business suits and that ever-present American flag lapel pin—but like Steve Rogers, he's not what he appears to be either. So, if Captain America is really a fascist what does that say about the powers-that-be who have mismanaged the country over the last almost eight years?

Recall that General George Washington was many things including first president and commander-in-chief. Therefore, since the country's inception, the military has been intimately associated with the office. Beyond the fact that candidate Obama ran successfully on an anti-war platform, the reality remains that as president he has kept the United States embroiled in very costly Middle Eastern conflicts exactly as his Republican predecessor did. (Incidentally, he also criticized George W. Bush's deficit spending as unpatriotic, then literally doubled down on the practice by spending twice as much.) If that's not enough insult to injury, Mr. Obama has simultaneously slashed the military. But, the rot—and the dysfunction—is more pervasive than is generally realized: American military culture, itself, is under a constant, multilevel leftist assault.

As demonstrated, this is seen in popular culture via fiction with now anti-hero Steve Rogers. It can similarly be witnessed in real-life Mr. Obama who is pursues a dogged “weakness through capitulation” strategy; the opposite of Ronald Reagan's highly successful “peace through strength.” Yet, the attack isn't only top-down, this corrosion is also in the process of eradicating the roots of the tree. Specifically, it is the misuse of law to undermine the long-established practices of one of America's oldest military colleges, South Carolina's almost 175 year old, The Citadel. Earlier this month, the institution rightfully refused to permit a Muslim student's request to wear a hijab—a headscarf demonstrating her faith—in addition to the school's required uniform. So, what is more important here, seven generations of tradition or the tyranny of one individual's right to self-expression? Well, that girl's parents aren't taking their daughter's rejected request lying down—they are in the process of considering “all legal options.” (Well, bully for them!) Naturally, the propagandist MSM is busy spinning yet another frivolous demand into a political tempest in a teapot. All in the name of “religious freedom and inclusiveness,” of course.

That's quite an interesting liberal perspective. So, under this given circumstance, one girl's right “for comfort” at The Citadel is suddenly an absolute. What happened to that same consideration—the comfort level and rights of biological girls (plural)—that this same crowd expect to share any school facility, locker room, shower area or bathroom with an outwardly presenting transgender male (or any mischievously adventurous teenage boy willing to fake it)? Sounds like a spirited game of South Carolina philosophical “Twister.” Soup to nuts, Orwellian nonsense.

All of these changes—bastardizing Captain America's image, an ideologue president's longstanding hard left polices, and in contrived school-based grievances—are smoke screens for something far more insidious. Specifically, these acidic actions are water droplets slowly, incrementally wearing away the bedrock that is American culture. It is about the creation of artificial crises (or in Mr. Obama's case a world traveling reminder of America's “sins” as with his current Japan visit) in order to justify rabid, homegrown anti-Americanism. Progressives are cowardly parasites. To maintain a stranglehold on political power, they corrupt and exploit every good thing that is America—even going so far as to demonize her most popular box office hero.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Whining Bushes' Sour Grapes

What's in a name, a future president? Well, Hillary Clinton certainly hopes so. Meanwhile, Bush scion Jeb is sidelined, and the whole clan, apparently is licking its wounds. Now, the electorate is sensibly beginning to coalesce behind presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, the Republican Party elites like Paul Ryan not so much. Specifically, also the grudge-holding political dynasty, the Bush Family. Yet, even if that endorsement was on offer (it's not), it is doubtful that Mr. Trump would want that elitist nod. And given the country's hunger for a political outsider, why should he want the stain of that affiliation? Recall, that the last Republican president was named Bush—and his lack of popularity propelled then unknown quantity, Mr. Obama into office.

To this end, a no doubt mouthpiece for the Family, in the form of one of George W. Bush's former chief speechwriters recently wrote: 

“Now loyalty to party is causing many to abandon their ideals. Conservatism is not misogyny. Conservatism is not nativism and protectionism. Conservatism is not religious bigotry and conspiracy theories. Conservatism is not anti-intellectual and anti-science. For the sake of partisanship — for a mess of pottage — some conservatives are surrendering their identity.

As is typical of The Washington Post, even their “conservative” writers get everything backwards, upside down and inside out (if that is possible). After all, what is the basis of the populist movement that is the Trump phenomenon? Is it Pavlovian style fealty to a familiar last name of one family member or another (read: Clinton's wife; Bush's brother and/or son) who has resided in the White House before? (Wasn't the American Revolution fought, in part, against such nepotism, royal or otherwise?) On both sides, these political elites very much want for rank-and-file voters to think so—to mindless pull the lever their way and then get back to their little lives finding work or paying taxes.

If the 2016 presidential contest has demonstrated anything, its that neither the voters nor the likely successful candidate is likely to act in conventional ways. For insight into this anomaly, let's look to the person actual conservatives hope Mr. Trump will emulate: Ronald Reagan. Of his own political evolution, he said: “I didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me.” Well, precisely. Weak-kneed Republicans have spent the disastrous Obama years alternatively cowering in a corner, afraid to be smeared as racists—or going to lunch. Yet, in the last two election cycles, Mr. Obama and fellow Democrats appropriately received electoral shellackings. Since then nothing has changed despite the liberals' loss of both legislative houses. Even under fresh-faced House Speaker Paul “clean slate” Ryan, it's been more business as usual. Specifically, when he rubber stamped 2 trillion more in deficit spending, he showed the American people that Republicans can engage in lip service (to ideals like limited government) as readily as progressives while simultaneously acting indistinguishable from them.

Speaking of which, let us go back further to look at the record of George W. Bush. For starters (though likely well intentioned), he also expanded government by creating a whole new bureaucratic, cabinet-level department with the Office of Homeland Security. By the numbers, when Mr. Bush's term started January 20, 2001, the debt left by Bill Clinton was $5.73 trillion. By the end of the Republican's two terms the debt had almost doubled to $10.63 trillion. How was the money spent? There was the greatest expansion in Medicare in decades. Likewise was his No Child Left Behind program that grew the (worthless) Department of Education. Then there was Bush's $700 billion dollar bailout of financial institutions. Add to the tab wars on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan (including progressive Wilsonian nation-building). Therefore, it is only a question of the extremity of the degree. But, that's a huge technicality. Indeed, Richard Nixon looks like a choir boy when compared to Mr. Obama's lawless, ultra-constitutional wrongdoing. Specifically, this current administration's constant and inept warring, big government expansion (read: Obamacare), stimulus spending and the GM bailout, and the exploding debt (read: Mr. Obama's 9 trillion and counting) makes anything we've had previously look like a cakewalk. Is it any wonder America wants to get off the nauseating Obama-Clinton-Bush merry-go-round?

As in nature, organisms instinctively find a way to survive. Even if they don't thrive, they adapt to changing conditions and new exigencies. Mr. Trump is that unexpected solution. Therefore, he scares the heebie–jeebies out of all entrenched establishment power-brokers. Well, so sad, too bad! Do the voters care about Mr. Trump's bluster or unfiltered speech—or are they sick to death of smarmy politicians bold-faced lies, and anti-First Amendment political correctness? Further, do they care that the coddled ruling class call Trump supporters bigots, misogynists or just plain ignorant? The only stupid vote here is for more of the same: crooked, lying Hillary who promises a dystopian Obama third term.

The present political reality is clear and unequivocal. After a robust contest, Republican voters have overwhelmingly chosen Donald Trump. Therefore, despite private reservations, GOP politicians have a public duty to the country to support the people's will in this matter. Indeed, this never-Trump crowd shows colossal selfishness and arrogance. Even worse, and most tellingly, they demonstrate de facto support another corrupt insider: Hillary. That means these well heeled hypocrites are enablers who want to game a system they can no longer control. And so what if the cost is the very soul of the country itself? For that's what's on the line here. That's also why Mr. Trump's status as an unpredictable, plain-speaking outsider is so essential.

So what if he's not a card-caring conservative? He's also not a standard do-nothing (or do the wrong thing) professional politician either. In the final analysis, if he can drag America back to its Reaganesque roots—a Herculean task—he will have the appreciation of a restored nation. So, let the insulated beltway creatures of Washington whine. From that other shining city on a hill, a smiling down Gipper will no doubt approve. 

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Gender Agenda Masks Failed Leadership

“The Democrats have created gender confusion... [In New York City], you can be fined for not calling people 'ze' or 'hir' if that's the pronoun they demand to use... It's speech crimes and thought crimes... This is... Mr. Orwell (knock, knock), Mr. Orwell, you're breakfast is ready.” - WMAL's conservative encyclopedia Chris Plante

“And it's all to keep you excited, keep you watching, like you watch a... a car wreck or a... wrestling match. That's just what it's like—professional wrestling. It's staged and it's fake and it doesn't mean anything.” Florida governor Fred Picker played by Larry Hagman in “Primary Colors” (1998)

Can all not agree that 2016 is shaping up as the pettiest, most small-ball and juvenile, presidential contest in modern times? Voter's must-see TV, like mindless cotton candy entertainment: sugar, some color and spin with little substance—and no worth. Thankfully, we are beyond the undercard, the freak show phase of Donald Trump's orange spray tan and Marco Rubio's small hands. Now, we're rapidly progressing to the red meat in the contest: Hillary's bold-faced lies and obvious corruption (read: Charity-gate and Server-gate). However, Hillary's “damn emails” is not something socialist Bernie Sanders will ever address. (Rest assured, Mr. Trump will not be so reticent.) Meanwhile, the real shocker here is not the unconventional Republican nomination of Donald Trump, it is the disappointment hoodwinked “feel the Bern” millennial supporters will experience when their aged Bolshevik anti-hero meekly withdraws from the race. Then, two truths will be painfully apparent to them. First, he was just in the race to promote his hard leftist, anti-American agenda. Second, he was only a stooge to make inevitable front-runner Hillary appear to be more mainstream (read: more palatable to the electorate.) Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton has neither her husband's good ol' boy roguish charm nor Mr. Obama's superficial shiny, fresh-faced newness to carry her to victory.

Yet, Mrs. Clinton, same as Mr. Obama, can always depend on the propagandist Fourth Estate. Indeed, facts and/or reality are never an impediment to the habitual Kool-Aid drinking MSM which is always at the ready to spread disjointed political spin. One prime example is the pure fiction of America's economic “recovery” under Mr. Obama. Still, he'll keep claiming illusory successes (read: the bureaucratic waste that is Obamacare; the “deal” soon to make Iran a nuclear state; his worldwide, bowing “apology tour” etc.). For their part, the sycophantic press will dutifully, and unquestioningly, transmit The White House's talking points, as dictated. The actuality that this de facto emperor has no clothes doesn't seem to matter to this small circle fest (read: Obama advisor Ben Rhodes's brother, David is CBS News President) of elitist powers-brokers. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama runs out the clock on his presidential term as a Tiger Woods wannabe. From his caustic fundamental transformation, what remains of our culture is so much the better.

With chaotic cities like Ferguson and Baltimore periodically erupting in mob violence and Black Lives Matter anarchy; with 93 million Americans out of work; with our nation in the mire of 19 trillion dollar debt; and establishment politicians of both parties not heeding the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, our society is literally falling apart by its seams. Why then the progressive myopic obsession with the trivial, the politics of gender and sexuality? Specifically, why the sudden urgency in the Obama years for gay marriage? Or its latest iteration, unisex locker and shower rooms, and gender-neutral bathrooms? Why do those now “in charge” go so far as not only to punish free speech, but also to promote a new set of pronouns that appropriate—and neuter—the English language itself?

This formula of semantic control is quite elegant in its simplicity: those who mold, modify, and impose themselves on the language of others determine the political discourse that shapes the country. In retrospect, word-burning political correctness makes certain communication (and their related thoughts) taboo. As an example, Facebook's ever-expanding list of progressive gender options, now at 71, is a case and point. Keep the oblivious masses distracted from the big picture: lawless, anti-American crazies, at every level of government, running the country literally into the ground. As evidence to any clear-thinking person, their soup to nuts failures at home and abroad. How is this feat accomplished? By the MSM's relentless focus on minutia like gender-bending labels or who uses which bathroom stalls. And worse in New York City, a new set of unnecessary pronouns to decode and master under threat of civil penalty. It's all the metaphorical equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic: America with Big Government, word-obscuring fascists at her helm. Mr. Orwell's dystopian “1984” nightmare realized with entitled Big Sister Hillary waiting impatiently in the wings. Yet, the scramble on the Mr. Orwell's breakfast plate isn't an omelet, it's the heaping mess of America mangled unrecognizable from within.

Trump's tonic is truth-telling. A quality most essential to our 45^th commander-in-chief.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Democrats Foul Meaning, Foment Rage

“[R]evolutions broke out in city after city... caused still new extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration on the methods of seizing power and by unheard-of atrocities in revenge. To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings.” - Thucydides, Greek historian (c. 460 – c. 400 BC)

Today's “Democrats” are both lip service experts, and linguistic contortionists. Ironically, despite the donkey mascot, they don't believe in democracy or the pioneering American spirit. That unfortunately ended with JFK's New Frontier optimism, and the subsequent tragedy of his and brother Bobby's assassinations. Recall that Kennedy's Camelot was quickly appropriated and replaced by something unrecognizable, Mr. Johnson's “Great Society.” Mind you, LBJ also still conveniently called himself a “Democrat,” but he was the first modern-day progressive, and his hard leftist policies were a radical departure from Mr. Kennedy's.

What did LBJ do? As any good fascist, he cleverly exploited the memory of his murdered predecessor into a governing mandate for his own, rather than Mr. Kennedy's, policies. After all, how could the American people have realized then the radical differences? (They don't even realize them now!) LBJ promised superficial hope and continuation; a calm voice in calamitous times. Reeling from existential grief, the voters did what they thought to be a reasonable thing: they elected Mr. Kennedy's V. P. Specifically, in 1964, LBJ garnered 61% of the vote: the widest popular margin in American history.

On the level of policy what did LBJ do? For starters, he nearly doubled JFK's government spending to $42 billion, and added 13% to the national debt. (These figures are quaint compared to Mr. Obama's 9 trillion of 19 in total, and counting.) Similarly, Mr. Obama has also expanded government with, for example, his takeover of 1/6 of the economy soon to be known as the Obamacare debacle. Likewise, LBJ had his failed War on Poverty. Related to the latter, what is clear in hindsight 50 years later? Per the 2013 U.S. Census Bureau 14.5 percent of Americans are poor, basically unchanged since 1967. In the interim, 22 trillion has been squandered, and generations of the nuclear family in the black community have been economically and socially decimated. This phenomenon is known as the Democrat's poverty plantation.

Fast forward to today to see the stark parallels between both men. Ironically, under America's first black president, the black community has suffered the most of any segment of our society. Look to the unprecedented, black-on-black murder rate of Mr. Obama's community-organized Chicago. Another telling sign, the black teen unemployment rate hit a staggering 39.3 percent in July 2012. Likewise, in a report for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, economist Dean Baker writes, “The drop in labor force participation was sharpest for African Americans, who saw a decline of 0.3 percentage points to 60.2 percent, the lowest rate since December of 1977.” To this end, Obamacare's restrictive employer mandates have contributed mightily to generally declining hiring practices. Equally astonishing is the fact that better than 90% of black voters choose Mr. Obama despite their unmistakably diminished prospects.

In any case, as with LBJ—and the fresh-faced Mr. Obama—with Kennedy nostalgia, the electorate saw what it wanted to see: a fun house mirror for its own hopes and dreams. In this regard, lacking the specifics of a track record was only a boon to BHO. He was a virtual unknown, totally untested, a political neophyte. He was also a polished, empty suit that symbolized what black people aspired to be. Likewise to white voters, Mr. Obama appeared to be the manifestation and realization of MLK's “Dream.” Once again, understandably, the trusting American public pulled the lever. A mistake made twice to our collective detriment. What America wanted another unifier, ideally perhaps JFK and MLK rolled into one. What we got was the opposite: another big government ideologue, a Johnson style bait-and-switch.

By the totality of his political philosophy, JFK would likely be a left of center mainstream Republican in today's world. He was pro-military, supported economy-stimulating tax cuts, was against deficit spending and was rabidly anti-Communist—and specifically, anti-Castro. In what universe could one imagine JFK going on a bended knee “apology tour” to America's geo-political foes? (To that end, he would have rightfully fired Hillary for her embarrassingly inept, Russian “reset button” stunt). Furthermore, what's the probability, Mr. Kennedy would ever vacation in Cuba or embrace authoritarian Castro in warm friendship? How about that U.S. military Mr. Obama has gutted? Or those Obama hell-freezing-over-first tax cuts? Our current president calls himself a “Democrat,” but he also claims a Christian faith for what's that worth. But, what of an apples to apples comparison of Mr. Obama to true Democrat Mr. Kennedy, or Ben Carson as a typical Christian? What is then seen in the former is a pretender who doesn't know the meaning of these concepts beyond lip service to them.

Obama, Clinton and Sanders are all ruling class elitists, happy to play obscuring word game patty-cake with the MSM. Notice the nebulous and fluid labels they use to define themselves:

“OK, well what’s the difference between a socialist and a Democrat?” Chris Matthews asked again.

“I can tell you what I am, I am a progressive Democrat,” Hillary Clinton responded.

“How is that different than a socialist?” The MSNBC talking head asked a third time.

“I am a progressive Democrat who likes to get things done.”

Well, isn't that a bit like hubby Bill's: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.”? “Democrat-Socialist” indeed! That's about as contrary and nonsensical as Big Brother's title for his Ministry of Peace that, in actuality, makes war. (Incidentally, that's why neither DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz nor front-runner Hillary Clinton can articulate the nonexistent difference). More to the point, when a term like “liberal” loses its sale value (as during the Reagan years) these chameleons—anti-American, big government fascists, one and all—shift to the common usage of a different, positive-sounding buzz word like “progressive.” The fact that this word is very similar to the word “progress” is intentional. Given, as examples, the widespread advancements in medicine and technology who in the 21^st century is not for more of that? The fact that both ideas have nothing whatsoever to do with each other is the point. Language becomes imprecise and overtly hazy. Therefore, a progressive is a good association code word to confuse—and ultimately dupe–uniformed voters. (Millennials, this means you!) Likewise, was Mr. Obama's vacuous hope and change slogan. Or Mr. Obama's ominous fundamental transformation of America. Sound good surface words that have brought wheels-falling-off ruin to America.

Think of a curse word for a donkey and that's the only aspect that has remaining relevance to these would-be “Democrats.” Their ilk only believe in one thing: perpetual top-down rule of an ever-expanding debt-ridden government they control. It's Uncle Sam reconstituted as nanny state wet-nurse. Recall, that economics is freedom. As is peaceful self-expression, and individual choice-making. In the final analysis, are Americans more free or less so after Mr. Obama's almost eight years in office? For a strong indication, the able-bodied 93 million unemployed can check their bank account balances, the rest can check their part-time paycheck stubs.

In no way do progressives/socialists resemble Democrat's roots: “go your own way” Classic Jeffersonian Liberalism. They are, in reality, their opposite number. Specifically, today's “Democrats” are that in name only. Mr. Obama has enjoyed and exploited an unquestioning quasi-religious fanaticism by the propagandist MSM, and his fellow political travelers in government. The state is their God and political power (via faceless, unaccountable bureaucratic government), their catnip. Make no mistake, they are against all traditional American ideals: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (via self-determination).

These folks use soft, meaningless euphemisms like “climate change,” and political correctness, as political smoke—sleights of hand—to distract from the abject failures of their policies. Hence, “leadership from behind,” and America's economics, military strength and political power in absolute contraction. Specifically, a corrupt IRS that continues to target conservative groups is just the tip of the ice burg. Politicians like Mr. Obama lie about Obamacare, and globally about his failed record as president. His would-be successor Hillary Clinton lies about her roles in Benghazi, Server-gate and Charity-gate. Added mightily by a sycophantic, water-carrying MSM, they know: say the lie loud enough and long enough and the sludge filters down as “truth” to the voters. Words mean what they say they mean. And, in this chaotic background, Black Lives Matter anarchists openly proclaim disorder and “Pigs in a blanket. Fry ’em like bacon.” Overseas radical Islam similarly chants “Death to America.” Lefties habitually destroy and loot. Contrarily, conservatives and the Tea Party preserve, and protest peacefully. They don't target cops for assassination or burn down American cities like Ferguson and Baltimore. They also don't vote for responsibility-phobic, two-faced politicians to whom truth is a foreign concept. Want more of the faceless, lawless mob mentality we have now? Ignore my honest, unvarnished words. Keep voting for Hillary's caliber of person who promises a dystopian Obama third term.

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

Wife of Bernie Sunk School

Decisions made by Bernie Sanders's better half—his wife, Jane—have run a small Vermont private school, Burlington College, into the ground. Her seven-year tenure as president lasted from 2004 to 2011 ending with a golden parachute: a $200,000 severance package. In 2010, she directed the institution in its $10 million purchase of 33 acres along the bank of Lake Champlain from the Roman Catholic Diocese. Fast forward to 2014, 25 acres have been re-sold for $7 million or a $3 million dollar loss to real estate developer Eric Farrell. This real boon to him, a failed hail Mary effort to keep the school's doors open. Those doors will close for good on May 27^th, ironically just shy of Memorial Day, Monday. As past is prelude, the millennial teachable moment for the 2016 presidential election? Ruling progressive/socialists like Jane, Bernie—and Hillary—always personally live large. However, their Obama style big government policies always leave ruin in their wake.

What was her grandiose, utopian plan? An empty pledge to double the student enrollment. How is that unrealized promise any different than her socialist hubby's of “free” public college? Her pipe dream was to be a paradise: a beautiful new campus funded on borrowed money. What now remains? About 30 educators and staff out of work—and a lender making angry noises about potential fraud in the application filed by Mrs. Sanders. (“Jane, you got some splainin' to do!”) Likewise is Bernie's absurd advocacy of a 90% tax rate, and expanded government dependence programs that will add 18 trillion to the nation's already mammoth, and climbing, 19 trillion dollar debt. (Recall that 9 trillion of that has been added by Mr. Obama alone). Yet, make no mistake, Burlington College's fate is a litmus test of Sanders' style failed leadership. Like wife, like husband, trust that that apple doesn't fall far from its tree!

As proof, anyone at the now bankrupt Burlington College can attest, the economics of socialism are inherently unsustainable. Britain’s prime minister, Margaret Thatcher famously said the real problem with socialist governments is that “they always run out of other people’s money.” Well, precisely. Socialists redistribute (think Obamacare). They steal from (capitalist) “Peter” to bribe (voter) “Paul”—and governmentthey mismanage controls all! In a nutshell, that's the fascist Obama presidency. Specifically, consider coddled Michelle Obama's attitude of entitlement as her husband stoops to “lead” us. Therefore, it is no surprise to any clear thinking person that job creators have been driven out of America (read: widespread corporate inversion). These hard leftist locusts rule and consume resources until there is no money left to beg, borrow or steal. Then, these characters perpetually claim hollow victories (fairness! equality!) and move on. All that is required is Mr. Obama's political optics. His formula: a few disconnected, cursory remarks, maybe a fly-in photo-op (read: Flint's water crisis) then onto those all-important waiting golf links. The end result is almost 8 chaotic years of anti-Americanism from every direction. Indeed, our society has been mangled—twisted backwards, upside down and inside out. Hence Black Lives Matter. So much for the hope in that change.

Examples of progressive failures abound. Think of Maryland's “singing cowboy,” former governor Martin O'Malley's “millionaire's tax.” (His “flush tax” and “rain tax” are also real gems.) Of course there is the economic downturn perpetuated by continuous overspending with America's Chinese credit card, and tax-and-spend policies of the aforementioned Obama Administration. Yet, let's cast the net even wider. Think of Venezuela's toilet paper shortage, and two-day work week. Does Jane Sanders's failed leadership, “the crushing weight” of debt incurred during her presidency, portend her husband's?

Jane was Burlington College's fourth president, but rest assured Bernie won't be America's 45^th. That honor is likely reserved for his opposite counterpart, a blustering populist and plain-speaking pro-American capitalist who defies all political odds, and has galvanized the electorate. Someone who actually knows how keep the lights on, the doors open—and pay the bills.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

A transgender kid's wisdom

“So it's deeply disappointing that where [a] child pees [writer's note: adults use the term 'urinate'] has become an issue in the presidential election.” The Washington Post's Petula Dvorak

Speaking of “passing water,” a truism in life is that water finds its own level. Apparently Ms. Dvorak has found hers perpetually beneath the knee of a now precocious Maryland third grader, Tyler. (An interview subject since he was 5.)

Compared to her, Tyler is indeed a fount of knowledge: a modern Oracle at Delphi in the compact package of a 9-year old body. As a featured authority by Dvorak, he can shed definitive light on the 'stupid' Obama bathroom issue. (Incidentally, he's right about the “bathroom” part, anyway. As bathrooms have stalls for privacy, they are a non-issue.) But the totality of Mr. Obama's federal kingly decree is problematic because it is global. Specifically, he has mandated that any student can use any school facility—shower, locker room or bathroom—of that individual's gender identity rather than that person's biological one.

That's great on paper. It's sounds superficially fair and inclusive. Yet, what of the rights—or comfort level—of insecure biological girls having to undress—or shower—beside someone with an outwardly male appearance? Recall that gender dysphoria is legally undefined. This circumstance opens up a perfect excuse for any mischievously adventurous adolescent male to readily access this formerly female-only space. Factor in the human reality of curiosity, surging hormones—and the inevitability of a cell phone's recording features—and what could possibly go wrong?

Perhaps, hopelessly naive Dvorak could interview a random teenage boy for that answer next. Or our intrepid columnist can wait several years to, once again, consult Tyler in middle school.

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

'Alice' in Obama-land

Who's been painting my roses red?/ Who dares to taint/ With vulgar paint/ The royal flower bed? /For painting my roses red/ Someone will lose his head... That's enough [finger-pointing]! Off with their heads! - Queen of Hearts from “Alice in Wonderland” (1951)

Well, at least Lewis Carroll's Queen allegedly has a heart. Unlike fascist Obama and his minions who have none (including heads.) Our real-life equivalent is scowling, imperious AG Loretta Lynch. She's twisted the meaning of the concept of “sex” in the 1964 Civil Rights act to mean legally undefined gender dysphoria. Yet, that estimated fraction of .03 of one percent of our population isn't at issue. This policy creates a sexual predator loophole: an excuse to access women and young girls in the confined area of public bathrooms, changing rooms (read: Target stores), showers and locker rooms. Of this, Ms. Lynch said: “None of us can stand by when a state is in the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something they are not.” Ah, the irony—and hypocrisy—emanating from the dictatorial beltway bubble. Via the federal regime, statist Lynch elevates criminal pretenders over the actual rights of biological females. Even the Queen of Hearts' logic is not so contrary.

Let's be clear: progressives have made an absolute mockery of Martin Luther King Jr.'s legitimate struggle for equal rights for the black community. However, transgender bathrooms have nothing to do with water fountains or segregated buses or schools. Specifically, hormone-fueled men present a potential clear and present danger to unaccompanied women, teens and young girls. So do mischievous adolescent boys wielding cell phones with camera and video functions. Like virtually every Obama-supported policy, this is another recipe for chaos—and disaster.

So, non-compliance to Mr. Obama's transgender edict (via his Orwellian Justice Department) will result in restricting funds for school breakfast and lunch programs for poor students. Heartless: so much for the party of “compassion” for the downtrodden. This is yet another power grab by Big Government ideologues to expand their own political control. See the longstanding Obama pattern: isolated, often petty (aforementioned bathrooms) or tragic situations (read: Obama “son” Trayvon Martin) are manipulated into full-blown societal crises. This artificial chaos propels desired hard leftist change (read: Obama's transformation). That, in turn, has siphoned off America's strength, and diminished her First World status at home and abroad. Pro-American conservatives are smeared as GLBT bigots for wanting to protect the dignity, privacy and safety of vulnerable girls and women. The Queen of Wonderland's treatment of Alice is less devious, radical and mean-spirited than figurehead Lynch's abuse of power.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Obama's School Fascism

The first entrenched, useless bureaucracy that should be abolished under a potential Trump administration should be the Department of Education. From on high (and in lieu of holding taxpayer money at ransom from the states like crack cocaine), Mr. Obama has decreed that a transgender [one-third of one percent or 0.3% of our nation’s population] student must use any facility—bathroom, locker room or shower—of that person's choice. So that means that a teenager that is physically male can use the private spaces of potentially disrobed females. And what of the rights—and comfort level—of the vast majority of impressionable girls?

Once again, this is big government tyranny of the left promoting the fiction of “inclusion and fairness” while achieving its polar opposite: a blatant anti-biological girl policy. To quote the DOE and DOJ advisory letter: “A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so.” So, the simple solution of allowing a transgender student to, for example, utilize a third option like a individual staff restroom—which incidentally evenly respects all parties—isn't good enough. Though progressives live in a time warp, this is not a modern version of a 60s style Jim Crow discrimination. This is more of Mr. Obama's anti-American radicalism: his fundamental transformation of America. Specifically, this tempest in a teapot is just another excuse for “Christian” Obama to undermine thousands years of Judeo-Christian cultural norms that inform our culture.

Let me be clear: this is not about the individual rights of transgender students. This is about fascist ideologues (read: progressives) promoting Sal Alinsky style conflict: misusing the extensive power of government to force an agenda that expands their own political power. Moreover, this wrongdoing is always done at the expense of freedom. A true-blue U.S. president, Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said: “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” With today's school edict added to his flurry of ultra-constitutional executive orders, what exactly does that make Mr. Obama?

Heretofore, the running of public schools was a local issue managed by individual states. No more, under our statist overlord masquerading as president. Now, Big Brother Obama's lash runs the gamut: Christian bakers can be forced to bake “gay” cakes, and groveling vendors like Target (reading the Obama tea leaves) institutes the “good” policy of dangerous unisex changing rooms. What's next? NSA surveillance of our bedrooms? Put nothing past these authoritarians. For almost eight years, George Orwell has turned in his grave.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

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

Ryan's hot air smoke screen

“Others merely talk about limiting government, cutting taxes and reforming entitlements, but Mr. Ryan spends most of his waking hours trying to accomplish all three; to him it’s the goal and not the process that’s all-important.” - The Washington Times' David Keene

If that's the goal, let's review the facts. Paul Ryan has been U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1^st congressional district since 1999. Therefore, his 17 year tenure encompasses the tail end of Bill Clinton's presidency, and all of George W. Bush's and Barack Obama's. Using the basic measurements of government size by spending and personnel—both of which indicate expansion—when has this “leader” ever honored his limited government pledge? Now as House Speaker—the highest-ranking Republican—has this policy-driven wonk finally curtailed government? How about a desperately needed tax cut for the economically squeezed middle class? More to the point, as Congress controls the purse strings, has Mr. Ryan held the line against further deficit spending?

What did Mr. Ryan do in the big chair? Using lofty rhetoric, his “clean slate” speech made nice with Democrats—and he rubber stamped two trillion more to the nation's Chinese credit card.

Recall the debt has almost doubled from GWB's accumulated 10.6 to Mr. Obama's added 9 trillion—and counting. In this, Mr. Ryan's former facial hair was apropos as he's definitely hiding something. What's that? He's the Democrats' beard. Where it matters—one's actions—he's not fundamentally different from big government progressives.

History demonstrates a cowed, do-nothing Republican establishment whose value of conservative principles is hot air. That's not my assessment, that's Dave Brat's (R-VA). He writes: “Conservatives are supposed to stand for fiscal discipline, balanced budgets and reducing government waste. Yet House leadership is currently whipping votes for a bad budget deal that was negotiated behind closed doors by party leaders and that blows through the budget caps.” He works there, so he should know. Better than me and certainly better than Mr. Keene.