Billionaire Soros: Hillary's Puppet Master

 “I need, Don Corleone, all of those politicians that you carry around in your pocket, like so many nickels and dimes.” – Al Lettieri as Virgil “The Turk” Sollozzo in “The Godfather” (1972)

Real-life “Godfather” George Soros pulls many nefarious strings. He bankrolls Black Lives Matter chaos and violence. He was also behind pro-amnesty lobbyists supporting Marco Rubio's failed “Gang of Eight” legislation. Indeed, this unelected, anti-American kingmaker needs figureheads to do his bidding. In this regard, corrupt two-faced Hillary is his primary political puppet. She's his MSM propped up Darth Vader; he's her emperor of a hoped for nightmarish, totalitarian one world government.

That means future years of the poisonous, politically correct Obama-Clinton doctrine: bold faced lies and anti-law (anti-police) stances while ignoring the Constitution; crippling debt, more overspending and government dependence/expansion/intrusion; open U.S. borders, further tolerance of illegal migration and radical Islam; a greater influx of resettled Muslim refugees; and de facto abdication of American power abroad. Suddenly, the true meaning of Obama's “transformative” progressivism comes sharply into focus.

To make an analogy, ISIS flourished when Barack Obama withdrew U.S. troops without first arranging a status of forces agreement. Hobbling America creates a similar leadership vacuum Mr. Soros can step into. In 1998, he tellingly revealed:

“The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. We need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy.”

That's the false premise of a bad actor. If nothing else, feckless and failed Obama proves the international community is entirely rudderless without a strong, pro-American values president. Otherwise, there is no Free World. Therefore, unchecked leftist dictators like Putin seize Crimea. That's small potatoes to Soros. He's got America in his sights.

Mr. Soros's name appears almost 60 times in campaign chairman John Podesta's WilkiLeak(ed) emails. After all, influence peddler Hillary needs her New World (marching) Orders. To that end, Soros's 'Hillary buy-in' is $25 million. That's pocket change—Godfather nickels and dimes—to a string-puller worth 24 billion. Thus, anyone supporting Hillary will get no change—and has no sense.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Puppet Hillary's Blame Game

During the 3^rd presidential debate Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton laughably claimed that self-made billionaire, Donald Trump—a political outsider—was a puppet rather than herself:

“He'd [Vladimir Putin] rather have a puppet as president of the United States.”

“No puppet, no puppet… You're the puppet,” was Mr. Trump's honest reply.

Excuse me, but which scandal embroiled candidate made a dirty U.S. uranium deal with Russia? Which same one blatantly broke American law and fostered potential espionage? As with everything two-faced Hillary says the truth opposes her own words and deeds. Via Charity-gate, Mrs. Clinton did the former; with Server-gate she did the latter. Thus, at the debate she falsely accused Trump of her own crimes. This behavior is classical psychological projection: her own deep-seeded guilt blamed on her innocent political opponent.

Beyond a worthless apology, Hillary's blame game never includes herself. Mr. Trump's call to Russia to release her illegally destroyed emails (if they have them) isn't espionage. He has nothing to do with what was left unprotected or has likely been stolen. First, wasn't it Hillary who intentionally had unauthorized, private servers set up in the first place as Secretary of State? Second, wasn't it Mrs. Clinton responsibility to follow the law forbidding such extraneous storage of classified information? Third, since she knowingly ignored the rules, doesn't she own the consequences of hackers and potentially “interfering” foreign governments in next month's election?

Hillary has aided Russia, the foreign government she now publicly demonizes. In reality if anyone is a hypothetical puppet of Putin's, it's Hillary Clinton not Donald Trump. Specifically, her State Department approved the Uranium One deal which insanely ceded Russia control of 20% of American produced uranium for a fat donation to her pay for play sham of a charity, the Clinton Foundation. (That's the highly prized “yellow cake” used in nuclear weapons.) What's to stop the Kremlin from sharing the extra supply with their Middle East allies, the nuclear ambitious Iranian Imams? You know, the same bearded fellows who finessed a toothless, Obama-approved nuclear deal that virtually guarantees them the bomb within the next decade? The answer to all of the above is nothing at all.

Moreover, if the Soviets do have her destroyed emails, Mr. Putin has a treasure trove of top secret material with which to blackmail the normally paranoid and self-obsessed Hillary. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton would waste critical years in office (vital to the continued solvency of America) looking only to save her own skin. Indeed, the next president must contend with the escalating, unsustainable 19.7T debt. (That sounds like a wheelhouse challenge to a businessman, and job creator, like Donald Trump.)

Yet, Hillary's not up to that, or anything constructive. Crooked Hillary will be embroiled in ever worsening scandals, and future Nixon style cover-ups. Just like her impeached hubby Bill, she'll remain in an endless cycle of political damage control. Recall, her already well-established track record of incompetence and lawlessness. While the country seizes in a hellish Clinton Administration death spiral, how would this divisive rabble-rouser lead—except disastrously—over a social and economic cliff?

It doesn't take a dummy to know who's better for America's future. If ventriloquists were Wall Street bankers, speechifying “Hillary six figures” would be their open borders, amnesty-promising marionette. Brassy Donald Trump should not be confused with any of that. Unlike the shifty one percenters who finance Mrs. Clinton's corrupt candidacy, Donald Trump's a captain of industry who can't be bought. He already has all of the fame, wealth and power anyone could want. America needs his tell-it-like-it-is 'can-do' optimism—not an elitist figurehead for foreign and domestic special interest groups, and corporate masters.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Hillary's Three Monkeys Defense

“I know nothing about this. I can't deal with every one of his [Trump's] conspiracy theories.” – Hillary Clinton, following the 3^rd presidential debate on October 19, 2016

Spoken straight-faced by she with whoppers of fish stories that would make Herman Melville—in a boat with Ernest Hemingway—positively green with envy. History recalls another tall tale this spider spun, her paranoid claim of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against hubby Bill during his '90s “bimbo eruptions.” Today, during the 3^rd debate, it's her fantastical claim of “Russian interference” in next month's presidential election. By well-established reputation, this habitual liar says it's so (citing 17 faceless government entities to back up her latest yarn)—so why wouldn't everyone believe her?

Apparently, the only conspiracies Hillary subscribes to are the ones she promotes. Other than that, for her, the modus operandi that works so well for all deluded Democrats is see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil (especially their own).

Tight-lipped Hillary Clinton in her Dr. Evil style Maoist pantsuit “knows nothing” about bused in, violent protesters paid by Democratic operatives to disrupt Donald Trump's rallies. Out of hand she disregards the hidden-camera videos released this week by the conservative group Project Veritas Action. (Apparently only an audio tape of Trump's locker room banter counts.) How easily Mrs. Clinton ignores Democrats' immoral acts, their accompanying discussion of their political dirty tricks; their further disclosure of (Marco Rubio's “non-existent”) voter fraud!

Specifically, campaign consultant Zulema Rodriguez, whose words are highlighted on a video called “Rigging the Election,” (released Monday) naturally claims selective editing of her admission:

“What was omitted and what I constantly repeated to the infiltrators was that my team and I work together to make sure everyone stays safe while exercising their rights. I believe this to my core.”

Speaking of shocks to the core, perhaps she and Michelle Obama could start a therapy group! The fact remains that she collectively received more than $21,000 from three pro-Hillary political organizations per Federal Election Commission records. The threat of her inspired mob caused Mr. Trump to cancel a rally in Chicago last March. Furthermore, Ms. Rodriguez acknowledged that her team “also did the Arizona one where we shut the highway down.” Since when is doing that a protester's “right to be exercised”?

Obviously, Hillary's monkey business minions have been caught red-handed. It remains to be seen if she—the real-life villain out of an Austin Powers movie—will ultimately be brought to justice. Despite Mrs. Clinton's post-debate denial, the only thing really not known here is the future. Given her fondness for high collared pantsuits, will wearing a big house orange jumpsuit be so different? Just this scintillating possibility is worth electing Donald Trump president on November 8th.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Marco Rubio: WikiLeaks Pipsqueak

“These leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it. Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today, it is the Democrats. Tomorrow, it could be us.” – Marco Rubio to ABC News on October 19, 2016

So the issue for good ole boy Marco isn't the Democrats' blatant political corruption (that any honest person would condemn), it's that Julian Assange via WikiLeaks had the nerve to disclose it? Given Mr. Rubio's elitist attitude, is it any wonder why average Americans are as disgusted with do-nothing establishment Republicans as they are with lawless progressives? In the final analysis, besides outsider Trump, what's the difference?

Of course, per habitual liar Hillary, her unauthorized servers—both illegal, and likely hacked—aren't a problem. Yet, what did the stolen DNC emails show? Surprise, surprise: more of two-faced Hillary Clinton's double-dealing. Specifically, her wink and smile extortion racket of the one percenters. Six figure speeches to Wall Street banks privately pledging a gangster's style protection and open borders while publicly demonizing both. Thus, she cashes in on their financial support while simultaneously claiming to be down-with-the-struggle like regular folks? Not a chance.

Another revelation of the hacked emails is widespread DNC election tampering. A coordinated effort by Mrs. Clinton's campaign—and disgraced, fired DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (reemployed by Hillary directly) —to deny surging Socialist Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination. So, why is pea-brained Mr. Rubio's first instinct (and primary concern) sitting on his “little hands” related to Democrats' dirty political laundry? (Indeed, if the situation was reversed, they'd chop at the bit to use such leaked information as political currency against the GOP.) Therefore, in psychological terms what is Mr. Rubio afraid of? Given the Halloween season, what deep-seeded skeletons are hiding undisturbed in his closet?

Here's the key to this weasel: “Tomorrow, it could be us.” Well, RINO Rubio, if you are so similarly self-serving and immoral as Democrats why should your ilk hold the reigns of power? The Florida senator breezily claims there is no election fraud in his state, but what if he is the fraud? Apparently, the learned senator is unfamiliar with a 2012 study by the Pew Center on the States entitled “Inaccurate, Costly and Inefficient: Evidence that American Voter Registration Systems Needs an Upgrade.” That report indicates:

• Approximately 24 million voter registrations, or 1 in 8, are invalid or substantially inaccurate
• Some 2.75 million people are registered to vote in multiple states
• 1.8 million dead people are still on the active voter rolls

So beyond the pivotal electoral outcome of the sunshine state what of the other 49, Mr. Rubio? What of a more recent survey that indicates that 13% of illegals confess to fraudulent voting? And what of Democratic-run cities like historically crooked Chicago where the dead unfailingly vote for Democrats every four years?

How can Marco Rubio claim closed-eyed ignorance? Precisely as Obama and Hillary, he, as they, sees not a smidgen of corruption. Shockingly, this fop even parrots Mrs. Clinton's laughable narrative that “foreign governments” are interfering in the presidential election. The actual problem remains infinitely closer to home. “Little Marco” need only borrow a mirror from his progressive friends on Capitol Hill.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Forgetting Clintons' Scandals with Trump's Words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Black Baker's Racist Oreo Cake?

“I thought it was an honorary name. … I'd be honored if someone named a cupcake after me.” – Oregon baker Anjelica Hayes

Apparently political correctness is now spoiling our desserts.

Anjelica Hayes, 26, owner of Portland's Fat Cupcake bakery, has been shamed into renaming one of her signature treats. Based upon her innocent understanding that the Oreo cookie is Mr. Obama's favorite, she had called her black and white confection “The President”. After a Yelp reviewer denounced the cup cake's name as a racial slur, the negative local press compelled Ms. Hayes to change its name to “The Professional;” a title never confused with this failed president.

Was Ms. Hayes making an unconscious political statement? Did she infer that Barack Obama is “black on the outside, but white on the inside”? Is Anjelica Hayes, who incidentally is black, a secret racist?

This absurdist “controversy” epitomizes what's wrong with progressivism. Numerous, deep-seeded problems which plague our society are utterly ignored (read: black-on-black homicide and Chicago's yearly record death toll) while non-issues (like this one) are fixated upon as spurious evidence of “racist” bogeymen. Consequently, innocents as she are wrongly demonized.

The triviality of identity politics is a cancer on our democracy. This dynamic is the same insanity which threatens to elect a candidate president based solely upon the superficiality of her gender. Objective facts like a track record of lies and abject failure—not to mention the travesty of lawbreaking corruption (read: Hillary's Server-gate)—are completely disregarded. This truth is as black and white as Ms. Hayes's renamed Oreo cupcakes.

Perhaps the baker Hayes will name a delicious pound cake after Donald Trump.  Maybe serve slices with some heavily whipped cream. After his triumphant 2^nd debate performance, that sounds like just desserts to me.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Two-Faced Hillary's Scarlet “C”

“No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.” – from The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, featured in “Primal Fear” (1996)

“I'm kind of far removed from the struggles of the middle class because [of] the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy. And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged.” – Hillary Clinton's remarks to Goldman-Black Rock, February 4, 2014

The game has been rigged, of course, by Hillary Clinton. If she's anything, she's the anti-Lincoln: an amoral, big government fascist willing to tear America apart to assure her own presidential ambitions. Released WikiLeaks's emails have revealed that Mrs. Clinton is perfectly fine with “both a public and a private position” related to, for example, fat-cat bankers on Wall Street. During the second presidential town hall debate, a questioner wanted to know whether “it is okay for politicians to be two-faced.” Shamelessly, “Big Sister” Hillary invoked Honest Abe to mitigate her own clear criminality (read: Server-gate). Would Abraham Lincoln have traded influence for personal enrichment as she has: $238 million in “personal earnings,” and a 2 billion dollar slush fund from their “charitable” foundation? The answer is never. Mr. Lincoln, unlike the grifters Clinton, was not for sale.

As past is prologue, power-obsessed, money-grubbing Hillary stands for nothing, save herself. Indeed, she is utterly bereft of any benevolent principles whatsoever. Despite an avalanche of damning evidence, what will it take for the American electorate to wake up to the reality of this amoral, two-faced creature? Specifically, in a bid to secure Bernie Sanders voters for herself, she reversed her position (from pro to against) on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Likewise, during the sham of a Democratic primary she came out against her “gold standard” Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which she had previously supported as Secretary of State.

The Hillary rabbit hole goes deeper, and gets worse. Per WikiLeaks, Mrs. Clinton does want open trade and open borders. In a private speech to Brazil bank Banco Itau in 2013, she reportedly said:

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

Given the ever-present threat of radical Islamic terrorism—and the underclass of illegal aliens bring all manners of their violence and problems with them—who but insane Democrats want unsecured borders?

They don't care one whit for displaced migrants or legal immigration. They want new bodies to populate their poverty plantation. A permanent, illegal underclass fits Hillary's personal ends nicely. Likewise, Bernie Sanders's economic fantasy of free college education for millennial votes. These are simply riffs from LBJ's political playbook. He established his good-sounding public sham, his so-called “War on Poverty.” To this day, politicians have wasted 22 trillion, but the poverty rate has not improved since the policy was announced in 1964. Privately, LBJ admitted his actual agenda: “I’ll Have Those N*ggers Voting Democrat For The Next 200 Years!” The overarching political strategy here is identical: pack the country with government-dependent Democratic voters to keep progressives in power in perpetuity.

Unfortunately, the re-election of failed, scandal-prone Barack Obama in 2012 conclusively demonstrated that anything is possible in American politics. All one needs is a sycophantic MSM to hammer a propagandist narrative. In Mrs. Clinton's case on offer is an empty resume—a track record of lies, corruption and failure—and the triviality of her gender. It's absolutely unacceptable for any presidential candidate to wear one face in public and another in private. Even Hillary's campaign chairman John Podesta acknowledged that she often “says things that are untrue.” More to the point, the late New York Times columnist William Safire called Mrs. Clinton “a congenital liar” decades ago. Recall that the purpose of any U.S. president is to follow the Constitution—and represent the will and best interests of the American people. Every lie, every evasion, every lawbreaking scandal is the fallout from Hillary's elitist arrogance and her self-centered political calculations.  

WikiLeaks has also disclosed that Mr. Podesta wrote: “I know she [Hillary] has begun to hate everyday Americans.” The feeling is mutual in many clear-thinking quarters of the country. They would certainly forgive shamed Hester Prynne her adultery, but not deplorable Hillary; a scot-free con who proudly wears her corruption like a Scarlet C.

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

Washington Post: Hillary Kool-Aid Drinkers

“If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation.” – Republican nominee Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton during the second presidential debate, October 9, 2016

“Mark the moment. A major-party presidential nominee is officially promising to lock up his political opponent, despite an impartial federal investigation....” An anonymous Washington Post editorial, October 10, 2016

As The Post is a Hillary fundraiser, it's impossible for them to be impartial related to Mrs. Clinton's candidacy. In practice that makes them a propagandist rag rather than a legitimate news source.

This is proven by how The Post has, once again, twisted reality into something completely unrecognizable. In their absurdist editorial “A threat to the rule of law,” Donald Trump's pledge to do the right thing—to prosecute Hillary Clinton's obvious corruption—is “wrong”? Let us cite the legal basis: 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.” Mrs. Clinton's non-government, unapproved servers certainly qualify. Thus, Mr. Trump's promise of a special prosecutor for Mrs. Clinton is actually following legal precedent: holding the powerful to the same legal standard as everyone else. Isn't that the purpose of our American democracy rather than the whims of the rich and politically powerful?

Mysteriously, the Post doesn't agree writing: “If anyone needed any more proof that Mr. Trump does not understand the meaning of rule of law as opposed to arbitrary rule of autocrat—that he would use the levers of the federal government in a vindictive, self-serving and corrupt manner—Mr. Trump provided it.” As an example, does Barack Obama's continuing misuse of the IRS to target political opponents suddenly not qualify? Why does The Post confuse outsider Trump with the acts of the current president who has existed by dictatorial overreaching executive orders for the last eight years?

In any case, since when does a politically motivated sham of an FBI investigation mean anything? Only to the Kool-Aid drinkers at The Post. They're the ones who “snarl and double down on old falsehoods” in their jaded character assassination of truth-telling Trump.

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

Hillary on Abortion: Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde

“I admire [white supremacist and Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.... I am really in awe of her.” – Hillary Clinton on receiving that organization's highest honor in 2009

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” – Hillary Clinton on NBC’s “Meet the Press” April 3, 2016

While science continues to roll back the timetable for life's inception, that reality has been counterbalanced by the autonomy of a woman's body—and her decision-making right regarding it. Between these two evolving points in time, what remains troublesome is the on demand aspect: the misuse of abortion as de facto birth control (especially related to the termination of late or third trimester pregnancies). As a contextual example, the black community accounts for 36 percent of all abortions (despite being approximately 13 percent of the total U.S. population). Further, since 1973, there have been more than 15 million black children aborted. Given such statistics, is the adage 'the most dangerous place for a child is the womb,' any mystery?

The human procreative power innately compels a basic level of personal responsibility. After all, this is an age when biology is well-understood. Prophylactics, like (often free) men's condoms, are widely available. Similarly, women have multiple low-cost contraceptive choices including the morning-after pill. In short, with minimal planning (under the lion's share of circumstances), there is no reason for an unwanted pregnancy. That is, unless the female in question has made poor personal decisions. If she has, why should society be complicit in paying for her irresponsibility; her choice to end the overwhelmingly likely development of a viable offspring?

As a main purpose of government is to protect its citizens (via funding the police and the military), it's natural for its philosophical orientation to be life-affirming. Thus, the Hyde Amendment which restricts some federal funds to certain welfare recipients (except in cases of rape or incest) makes perfect sense. (Interestingly, an updated version was signed into law by Bill Clinton on October 22, 1993.) Therefore, the only reason the law has come under fire recently is because progressives want abortion available at any time, and under all circumstances. Therefore, they spin the absurdist tale that the 40 year old law is about 'telling a woman how to lead her life' (read: unfairly saddling poor women with the financial drain of unwanted children). So, under the illusion of being “women's rights advocates,” Democrats actually push a different agenda entirely: big government dependence (that they vitally control). Therefore, in this matter, the suggestive science—and individual responsibility—are completely ignored by them.

Hillary Clinton made a Freudian slip when she used the phrase “unborn person” rather than a fetus. She casts abortion narrowly as a sacrosanct women's right, then muddles her basic claim by inadvertently acknowledging the fetus's personhood. The unborn may technically have no constitutional rights. Yet, what of that other foundational American document, the Declaration of Independence's Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? (Apparently, Hillary applies this principle to gun control, but not abortion.) Moreover, as the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Mrs. Clinton approves the historic repeal of the Hyde Amendment while simultaneously enjoying the reputation as a “child advocate”? One gets whiplash decoding her hypocritical double standards; how she plays every side of this issue.

Feminists and conservatives agree: a woman's body is hers, not the state's. Therefore, she must logically own the consequences of its use—same as a man. Indeed, to compel our life-preserving government directly into the any time life termination business is a Soylent Green style schizophrenic expectation. What is truly “cruel” here is not the restrictive Hyde Amendment. It's irresponsible women who shift the blame for their own life-ending inhumanity. Equally culpable are outspoken Jekyll and Hyde politicians like Hillary Clinton who repeatedly finance racist Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood under the guise of providing preventative women's health services.

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

Duke University: Combating “Toxic Masculinity”

“Aiming to create a space of brotherhood fellowship dedicated to interrogating male privilege and patriarchy as it exists in our lives, our campus and our society.” – The Men's Project, sponsored by the Duke Women's Center

Rather than classically educating the mind and developing the character, Duke University has officially joined the academic cult of politically correct social engineering.

The estimated cost to attend North Carolina's Duke University this year is $70,092. For all those greenbacks—some $280,000 for a 4-year degree—any male offspring can look forward to being demonized for inherent “toxic masculinities” due to his gender. To that end The Men's Project is creating a “safe space” so young men can, in essence, 'make healthier choices while critiquing their own masculinity'—and fret over their “male privilege”. Thus, by design, young men should feel deficient solely for the expression of their manliness? What complete hogwash!

College junior Dipro Bhowmik, of the 4-person student leadership team, informed the Duke Chronicle that the indoctrination concerns “questioning how you can be accountable to feminism, to the women in your life and to the larger community.” Excuse me, accountable to feminism? Why is it that modern feminism has been so radicalized that it cannot peacefully (and respectfully) coexist with men in their normal behavioral state?

Given the timing of this Orwellian initiative, one wonders is this some bizarre overreaction to the 10th anniversary Duke lacrosse scandal (in which three male students were falsely accused of rape)? Isn't it long overdue for the powers that be at Duke University to stop artificially polarizing the student body on the basis of gender?

Looking to the archetype for angst-ridden young men, Shakespeare's Hamlet, it is famously written: “To thy known self be true.” The Bard's time-honored advice is ignored by this self-hating generation in need of a serious reality check. They should ponder that in their “safe space.”

As a top-tier institution of higher learning, Duke University has the responsibility to serve its students far better in this matter. For the record, truth comes from self-acceptance, not a fascist motivation to manipulate the impressionable into that which is contrary to their given nature.

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

FBI's Comey: A Weasel Among Rats

“You can call us wrong, but don't call us weasels. We are not weasels.” – FBI Director James Comey at a congressional hearing on September 28, 2016

Sigmund Freud would have a field day with Mr. Comey's psyche. Dr. Freud would say he protests too much. Why does the FBI Director compare himself—and the now perhaps forever tarnished organization he heads—to a pack of weasels? Guilty subconsciousness perhaps, Herr Doctor?

Recall, the FBI's motto is Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity. Once important American ideals, today reduced to a bumper sticker slogan. Consider the bureau's former principled reputation of incorruptibility: of holding the powerful to account without fear or favor. Men like Eliot “untouchable” Ness who risked life and limb to combat criminally rather than condone it as James Comey clearly has. How else does one explain his actions of last January, of laying out an unambiguous case of multifaceted Clintonian law breaking, only to ultimately sit on his hands and close the investigations?

To add insult to injury, Mr. Comey foolishly took the political heat for his public pronouncements. Yet, the fix was in before that. Specifically, when spouse Bill Clinton had an “unplanned” chinwag with Attorney General Lynch. Both in different private planes which by “sheer coincidence” crossed paths on the same tarmac in Phoenix. So the nation's top prosecutor meeting privately with the spouse (an ex-president) whose wife is the prime subject of a then looming criminal indictment isn't a colossal conflict of interest? Moreover, is it any surprise that just days after that infamous meeting AG Lynch announced that Hillary would face no criminal charges?

So, one supposes during their 20 to 25 minute exchange, Mrs. Lynch and Mr. Clinton only chitchatted about the grand kids as was claimed? Seriously? That's the same malarkey as Mrs. Clinton's yoga routines and Chelsea's wedding plans that she claimed populated her private servers. Those unsecured, illegal devices likely hacked by bad actors in which Mr. Comey stated 110 emails were classified—and 48,000 (read: 33,000 originally reported and an additional 15,000 recently uncovered) were destroyed.

By ignoring the law—and the evidence—Mr. Comey wrongly recommended non-prosecution. He laughable claimed he didn't want to interfere in the upcoming election, but he has done precisely that—and not on the side of the angels. How is any presidential candidate known by reputation to be a habitual liar—an immoral and greedy person mired in 40 years of infamy—good for the country? If the email scandal wasn't malfeasance enough, there is the Clinton Foundation “charity”: a pay-for-play scheme involving high-level political favors in exchange a personal Clinton slush fund (while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State). The 238 million the Clintons have “earned” after being “dead broke” 15 years ago doesn't even factor in the 2 billion dollar foundation they control. By his own Freudian omission, Mr. Comey's a weasel, but the crooked Clintons are far worse: unapologetic rats who make Richard “Watergate” Nixon look, by comparison, like a church mouse.

Experience repeatedly demonstrates that honesty and the 'for sale' Clintons have never coincided. They should be on the verge of the big house, not the White House. What on earth is going on here? How can the superficial irrelevancy of identity politics—this time in the trivial form of an empty skirt by a corrupt wearer—obscure this obvious truth? One wonders, is this propagandist Germany of 1933 or freedom-loving America of 2016? How can such an ignoble character enjoy such mindless support—and have a 50/50 shot at becoming the next U.S. president?

In any case, Mr. Nixon was drummed out of the nation's highest office for his law breaking. He certain didn't go in the door dogged by a well-established track record of villainy as Hillary Clinton hopes to. That, too, is a vital distinction. Yet, the Mrs. Pig Pen of American politics has only one unpredictable barrier to overcome if she can: outsider Donald Trump.

In the final analysis, political power without a guiding morality—and/or respect for law—is inherently corrupt. This dynamic encapsulates the disastrous Obama years (soon mercifully to be in the rear view mirror), James Comey's “weaselly” words of last week, and the titanic mistake of electing another corrupt Clinton to the Oval Office in November.

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