When Celebrity Insults Patriotism

In our modern era of internet connectivity and 24-hour news cycles, for better or worse, celebrity is an instant megaphone for gaining national attention. Especially for the controversial, or in former quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers Colin Kaepernick's case, the foolishly aggrieved. Given his upbringing in a loving household by adoptive parents, a college scholarship—and per Spotrac earning $43,479,216 during a short-lived NFL career—one would think this manifestation of the American Dream would be the first to sing its praises. Yet, this “social justice warrior” instead chose to wear socks depicting little piggies wearing police hats. (How does that stunt not visually reference Black Lives Matter's anarchist chant, “Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon”?) Furthermore, if that wasn't derogatory enough, his habit of not standing during the national anthem also repeatedly violated polite sensibilities. In August of 2016, this agitator explained himself:

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.”

Unfortunately, that divisive example has spurred a larger movement of disrespect by NFL players that has turned off patriotic Americans from watching a previously beloved sport. Specifically, Sunday Night Football is down 9 percent from last week. For context, that's down 11 percent from the comparable game last year. Whether the loss of viewership will make a difference to the organization remains to be seen.

In any case, Mr. Kaepernick finds himself sacked for his lack of performance. Undoubtedly, his juvenile antics didn’t help matters either. If he's made himself odious to the league, isn't the fault his own? Beyond that, what has this sideshow really achieved? Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” (1992), has the answer:

“All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That's all you did. ... Sweet dreams, son.”

Why is metaphorical defecation on the American flag “the newest sport” of multimillionaire football players in the NFL? From grade school, all children are taught to stand, place hand over heart and salute the American flag. That's the purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance—a unifying promise to country—one nation under God. Simply put, it's the basis of civic responsibility and patriotism. By taking a knee (rather than standing), how is that not an act of blatant disrespect? Not to their fellow citizens per se, but to generations of buried soldiers who sacrificed everything to guarantee American liberty. A case in point is President Trump's September 24 tweet:

“Courageous Patriots have fought and died for our great American Flag — we MUST honor and respect it! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

In this situation that freedom includes petulant protesters bemoaning their good fortune: being paid a king's ransom for an hour of chasing a pigskin around a manicured field of dreams. What a tough life these pampered athletes have! How they “suffer” for their weekly gridiron exertions!

At least 5-time Superbowl champion quarterback Tom Brady of the aptly named New England Patriots thinks so:

“I mean, we go through a lot together, there’s a lot of blood, sweat and tears. I don’t think it’s easy to play this sport. I mean, there’s a lot of guys that sacrifice a lot.”

Certainly actual heroes, the ones facing gunfire storming the beaches at Normandy (read: the Allied invasion, codenamed Operation Neptune, on D-Day: Tuesday, June 6, 1944) during World War II—like our recovering wounded warriors of today—would laugh at the absurdity of such a pretentious comparison! After all, football is only a game: an artificial clash with rules and penalties. The goal is not to kill the enemy, it's to achieve a high score. To that end, it has brightly uniformed teams, adversarial elements and risk to life and limb, but no weapons and medical professionals on standby. Likewise, while both activities tax body vitality, battlefields don't have referees, timeouts or commercial interruptions. Moreover, recall that the base salary for a soldier is $19,198.80. Adding combat pay of $225.00 per month means another $2,700. As the average professional football player earns $1.9 million annually, who's exactly sacrificing a lot here, Mr. Brady? (In any case, certainly not he. According to Forbes, Mr. Brady is the 15th–highest paid athlete in the world. With salary and endorsements, he earned whopping $44 million in 2016.)

What is football, or any sporting event, supposed to be? A lighthearted diversion from real-life stressors for the audience. So, who wants polarizing leftists ruining a traditional American entertainment with their in-your-face grievance pretenses? In any other profession, employees are fired for disruptive displays at the workplace on company time. Is that really what fans pay to see? And if they object, why don't their feelings count?

Despite the superficial liberal narrative that this is a “racial” issue, it is not. The only pigments involved here are red, white and blue. After all, the flag's stars and stripes do not play favorites. They do not represent a particular class, creed or color. Indeed, this uniquely American symbol epitomizes everyone within her borders. Thus, ironically, players kneeling in a posture of submission during the national anthem are a cultural “attack” on America's foundation. Factoring in the U.S.'s many legitimate challenges, who needs Colin Kaepernick's growing tempest in a teapot? Who is to blame for its cascading dishonor but his muddled followers? Game day politically correct rabble-rousers with lots of money, but not a lick of sense.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

DACA's Robin Hood Excuse

Only in legend—and our topsy-turvy political climate—can lawbreakers be treated like heroes. As an analogy, Robin Hood famously stole from the rich to give to the poor. While doing so, he ironically wore all green: the color of money. This bowed bandit took goods benefiting one group, the wealthy, and redistributed them to another. Thus, was this Sherwood Forest dweller, this “do-gooder” outlaw, the world's first Bernie Sanders (I-VT) socialist?

Today, can't any political scheme be rationalized via Robin Hood's claim of good intentions? For example, when Democrats made their late night, locked door legislative arrangement—with zero Republican support that average Americans knew nothing about—that's called Obamacare. Given their appropriation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, Robin of Loxley would have undoubtedly been among their number given his own sticky fingered proclivities. Yet, if a similar takeover was perpetrated in the private sector, it's likely criminal; or in DACA's (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) case at least unconstitutional.

How is stealing a quasi-legal status akin to citizenship not in the same vein as bank robbing? After all, in both cases something valuable is stolen by individuals with no legal entitlement to it. Complicating matters is the fact that such freedoms are intangible: in essence, more precious than Robin's booty could ever be. So, rather than a higher penalty, our society's lawmakers should reward such wrongdoing, again? For context, during the Reagan era, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) granted up to three million unauthorized migrants a path to legalization if they had been “continuously” present in the U.S. since January 1, 1982. Isn't any DACA replacement, regardless of its particulars, singing from the same sheet music? Make no mistake: it's politically correct amnesty for the undeserving. A popular and easy “fix” to low-information voters that bolsters the self-serving agendas of both political parties: cheap labor for Republicans, voters for Democrats. However, what's politically expedient still is not right. Laws turned into Swiss cheese by Washington's shortsighted whims are as effective as porous borders are safe.

Any democratic society must respect the laws that bind its members or it quickly degenerates into chaos, criminality and tribalism. Such is the ongoing occupation of America by an estimated 11 million illegals. Under the best scenario, even a handful of bad actors among this shadowy underclass are an existential threat. Who are they? Where are they? How do they support themselves? Where do their loyalties lie? How is any modern society to function without safeguards or a basic measure of cultural cohesion?

In any civilized society, lawbreakers go to jail for undermining society in various fundamental ways. Consequently, that outcome causes absences that divide families. Children from both camps, though no fault of their own, are made to suffer because of their parent's unlawful decisions. In a nutshell, illegals' offspring are “anchor babies” compelling D.C.'s current “compassionate” DACA doublespeak. In the name of their broods, why should illegals derive special privileges that no incarcerated citizen enjoys: to flout our laws with impunity, and escape consequences all to benefit their blameless loved ones? In other words, a good sounding excuse justifies almost any malfeasance. By that same skewed logic, should all convicts be liberated from America's prisons solely to rejoin their marginalized children? The fact remains that both sets of law violators present a potential danger to everyone else. Even a crowd-pleasing rogue like Robin Hood would not abet such a grand injustice.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

Paul Ryan: Nicest Swamp Creature

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In other words, due to one's high status that person can claim anything without fear of being challenged by those who know less. So it is with Washington Times columnist Richard W. Rahn's muddled analysis of Paul Ryan (R-WI), an 18-year veteran of the Washington bog. Given this writer's flowery assertions, however, he sounds like the newly appointed cheerleader of the Republican excuses brigade! To that end, his doe-eyed opening sentence speaks volumes:

“It is tough to play hardball with your friends.”

Has Congress metastasized into a millionaires' social club? Are Mr. Ryan's fellow representatives supposed to be playboys for him to pal around with? If that's now the prevailing mind-set on Capitol Hill, it certainly explains a lot! Specifically, Gallup's record low approval rating for Congress in 2017: a measly 16%. And is that statistic any surprise given their collective failure to repeal Obamacare—after seven years of broken GOP promises? Thus, is it reasonable to sing Paul Ryan's praises as he's one of the primary figures responsible for the ongoing legislative morass?

That's not Pauly's fault, says Rahn. The real trouble is he's just so darn agreeable! Is affability suddenly a personality flaw in politics, or in the business of governance? If so, will someone send Mr. Ryan “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie? Recall, in the natural world that honey's sweetness attracts many more flies than vinegar; so it is with human nature. In fact, didn't President Ronald Reagan epitomize a sunny disposition—and didn't that trait make him more effective as a leader, not less so?

Naturally, the reality of Speaker Ryan's inherent inability to lead is quickly glossed over:

“[He is] not particularly good at managing a large number [read: 240 of 435; one vacancy] of independently-minded people.”

For his unsuccessful cat wrangling of only his party (and half of the legislature) a premium is earned: a $223,500 annual salary. That's a whopping $49,500 more than the House's rank and file. (By comparison, President Trump runs the entire executive branch for $400,000 a year, per Title 3 of the U.S. Code; donating his whole salary, save one dollar, to charity.) Mr. Ryan has not followed suit—and given his lack of positive results—perhaps he should.

But wait, Rahn claims, Mr. Ryan real aptitude is as a “policy wonk”. If that's so, why did he capitulate to the Democrats' two trillion dollar debt-busting budget rather than opposing it? Likewise, is he “highly accomplished” for losing control of the budgetary schedule as Mr. Rahn admits? For context, when Speaker Ryan assumed his leadership role on October 29, 2015, the national debt was $18,152,590,112,385.69. As of this writing, it has increased to $20,173,505,864,062.25. After almost two years, why are all of the economic indicators under his “expert” tutelage still going in the wrong direction?

Beyond the escalating debt, proof is seen in the pitiful pre-Trump 2% GDP. By those measures alone, Mr. Ryan would have been fired in the private sector long ago. After all, as Speaker he determines the agenda; same as his chamber controls the nation's purse strings. And despite his hollow-sounding protestations about not initially wanting the post, the fact remains that he took it. In this way, he seems to cultivate a regular guy “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” persona. Still, the fact that Mr. Rahn doesn't see through this slick veneer is troubling. It means his favorable depiction of Mr. Ryan is untrustworthy. As that is the case, perhaps a fictional one can illuminate his real-life subject better:

“Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.” – Dr. Jeffrey Pelt, National Security Adviser, played by Richard Jordan in “The Hunt for Red October” (1990)

Now that sounds like a realistic baseline with which to evaluate any longtime D.C. insider. Yet, unlike Dr. Pelt, one would never expect Paul “not ready” Ryan to be so candid about his own history of mealy-mouthed capriciousness regarding his faux support of President Trump.

Hence, in the Trump era, the American electorate has had their fill of nice guy RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who embrace the status quo by subverting “M.A.G.A.” policies. By his record and his actions, that's who Paul Ryan really is. That's also precisely why our results-driven president cut a three-month extension with the Democrats (for government funding, and Hurricane Harvey relief). And why not? When has that fresh-faced facade of the do-nothing Republican establishment ever been a friend to him? Indeed, championing such incompetence demonstrates a profound obliviousness to modern-day political dysfunction—that even a clear-eyed low-information voter can see.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

Confederacy Stains Church Windows

In 1953, was it really wrong to commemorate Gen. Robert E. Lee in the stained glass of Washington, D.C.'s National Cathedral? For context, a typical statement from this post-war unifier from March 15, 1866:

“We shall have to be patient, and suffer for awhile at least; and all controversy, I think, will only serve to prolong angry and bitter feelings and postpone the period when reason and charity may resume their sway.”

Politically correct progressives, it seems, are in a cultural jihad with his ghost. A modern-day McCarthyism-style fervor to annihilate the famous figures populating their own Confederate history. It's analogous to a real-life “Fahrenheit 451”: tearing down statues of their forebearers instead of burning books. However, the goal to eradicate threatening ideas—both sets of objects represent—is identical. Unfortunately, Democrats' demented dogma has recently shuttered the windows of a national religious landmark.

Last Tuesday evening—after a two-year debate—the cathedral's governing board voted to remove two 4-by-6 foot stain glass panels. Related to church windows, what do parishioners typically see other than emanations of color and beautiful designs? Still, the fact that they depict two important Confederate generals, Lee and Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, now means they must be purged. Per Church officials, this sudden “eyesore” is “a barrier to our important work on racial justice and racial reconciliation.” A convenient excuse of the self-righteous to perpetrate retribution against demonized, and defenseless, targets. Flawed as they may have been, weren't these American soldiers also Christians? Thus, to utilize Scripture as a guide:

“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother [Confederates] who sins against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy-seven times!'” (Matthew 18:21-2)

As their religion's prime directive is forgiveness, why have these church elders sown dissension instead?

Hence, their brief deconsecration service that followed Thursday was a farce. A hypocritical effort to mask scorn via a “respectful” ritual toward disparaged subjects. Yet, liberals' self-serving perpetuation of an ancient grievance has no relevance, for example, to Lee's post-war actions. In this matter, their ire is a bizarre and destructive (often violently expressed) mind-set. Thus, as the acknowledged face of the Confederacy, Gen. Lee is a scapegoat for Democrats' own existential crisis of conscience. In short, they use his image to inflame today's political landscape. Their groundless accusations—as their unfounded rage—have no bearing on him, then as now.

Neither do their baseless claims of his influence have any connection to race relations in America of 2017. Our widespread celebration of diversity—as demonstrated by commonplace interracial marriage—is a case in point. Those needing a more blatant example of societal evolution need only consider the last occupant of the Oval Office. What greater honor can be bestowed upon anyone to represent all Americans then electing that person to helm the country?

Speaking of obvious truths, the Cathedral Chapter's unfortunate determination is actually an insult to the gift, and the legacy, of the completely blameless United Daughters of the Confederacy (and a private benefactor). After all, they raised the funds and donated the windows to the church. Thus, for 64 years the Daughters' intention was to honor the past, not justify its mistakes. This fact was even acknowledged by religious progressive Gary Hall, the former dean of the cathedral, who stated in 2015 that the prominently placed panels signified a desire to “foster reconciliation between parts of the nation that had been divided by the Civil War.” Historically, that means the Confederacy’s descendants commissioned the windows as an act of contrition: to promote unity, and healing. In other words, precisely what Lee did during the Reconstruction Era. Therefore, what reflective message could be more appropriate in a hallowed space than that one? To the well-informed, removing the windows only abets ignorance of the past. Quite an “enlightened” decision in this topsy-turvy political climate!

Tragically such visual beauty has also become a Rorschach test for polarizing partisans in the MSM. For example, The Washington Post's Colbert King misconstrued:

“The solemn truth was inescapable: The windows honored a system that rested upon black subjugation and white supremacy. They were a stain on the cathedral and were, as the chapter’s removal resolution stated, 'inconsistent with [the church’s] current mission to serve as a house of prayer for all people'. ... They had to go.”

Interestingly, this columnist's spouse, Gwen, is a member of the Cathedral Chapter. She voted to strip the nave of these “offensive” artifacts, too. Given the Kings' collective advocacy of vanquishing the National Cathedral's “silent symbols of a bloody war fought to uphold a traitorous Confederacy rooted in slavery,” perhaps they should complain about the open display of crucifixes next? After all, didn't the Ku Klux Klan (read: the militant arm of Southern Democrats) habitually burn crosses to terrorize minorities? Aren't these archaic instruments of Roman torture as off-putting to the delicate sensibilities of their flock as their newly condemned windows?

As followers of Christ, what would Jesus do?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

Lindsey Graham: Ruinous RINO

Conservative icon President Ronald Reagan has a famous Eleventh Commandment that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) foolishly disregards to his—and the GOP's—political peril. It is thus: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. Yet, for the enticing glow of a TV camera—and the gotcha questions of a liberal interviewer—he will say just about anything:

“[Attorney General] Jeff Sessions is wrong. These kids are not taking jobs from American citizens, they're part of our country.”

By any legal definition, citizens make up America; this is true of every sovereign nation on earth. As Sen. Graham received his J.D. from the University of South Carolina in 1981, one would assume he comprehends the distinction. After all, the law is unambiguous: either one resides stateside legitimately, or not.

Only one who slept through law school could possibly take the position that AG Sessions is incorrect regarding the “Dreamers.” Specifically, Barack Obama's June 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was an overreaching executive order. Such rule breaking is the purvey of emperors or would-be kings: never any Constitution-respecting U.S. president (like Trump). In fact, Mr. Graham should be incensed that his lawmaking role had been so roguishly usurped by DACA: not defending the undeserving recipients of this ultra-constitutional farce.

Given Mr. Graham's inexplicable attitude, isn't it disconcerting that this senior senator has been a member of Congress for more than two decades? In all that time, why hasn't his ilk resolved the illegal migration problem? Moreover, rather then taking Mr. Obama to task for creating this immigration mess, Mr. Graham publicly criticizes a member of his own party for following the spirit, and the letter, of the law?

Why do so many prominent Republicans like he, John McCain (R-AZ) and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—indigenous Washington “swamp” creatures one and all—defend their do-nothing status quo? At every turn, it seems, they offer nothing more than full-throated excuses such as, laughably, McConnell's:

“Our new president, of course, has not been in this line of work before, and I think had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the Democratic process.”

Therefore, one can understand why the can-do attitude of a results-driven, private sector capitalist would challenge the bureaucratic intricacies of government that lifelong politicians hide behind. Consequently, a main reason why President Trump was elected: to “shake things up” that badly need it! Insanely, these RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) undermine him and the agenda that he—and they—were elected upon! Why are they indistinguishable from their truth afflicted Democratic counterparts?

Once again, Mr. Graham is mistaken when he, as Democrats, blithely claims that “Dreamers” are not siphoning resources—and opportunities—that should be reserved for U.S. citizens. Indeed, how can this “leader” ignore the negative impacts of the undocumented? One telling example is taxpayer funded public school education. Per the National Center for Educational Statistics:

“Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States in 2013–14 amounted to $634 billion, or $12,509 per public school student enrolled in the fall (in constant 2015–16 dollars).”

For context, per Pew Center statistics, some 11 million illegals reside in the United States. Of those, approximately 17% are under the age of 18. As a typical pre-college education is twelve years, at $12,509 per year for 1,870,000 illegals amounts to: $280,701,960,000! Furthermore, related to employment, Pew Hispanic Center puts the number of illegal aliens in the workforce at 8 million. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median wage for full time workers in the United States in the final quarter of 2016 was $44,148 per year. That amounts to $353,184,000,000 in lost citizens' wages. How's that not taking by foreign squatters from the fiscally abused taxpayers who also pay Lindsey Graham's yearly salary of $174,000? Is he just insulated or completely obtuse?

After more than seven and a half months of GOP inaction and broken promises (read: Obamacare repeal) what's clear is that RINOs, as he, care nothing about their ill-used constituents. You know, the voters who elevated his kind to majorities in Congress. So, why the utter disconnect by the upper echelon of the Republican Party?

It turns out these folks have a political syndrome akin to Jan Brady's Marcia envy. For those unfamiliar with the sitcom “The Brady Bunch” (1969-1974), Jan was her family's insecure loner, the often marginalized middle child to her popular paragon of an older sister. Beautiful and talented, Marcia naturally attracted attention overshadowing her inferior sibling. Like Jan, RINOs desperately want to be liked—above all else! Ironically by the Trump-hating liberal clique that is the MSM. However, the press is populated by propagandist “mean girls” unwilling to lavish the same slavish devotion they habitually bestow on Democrats. Hence, RINOs utter soft, milquetoast phrases, as exemplified above, mimicking progressive perspectives. Specifically, that Lindsey Graham wrongly sees the offspring of lawbreakers as part of our societal fabric is inconsistent with immigration law—and the will of American patriots. How then can he also support funding Trump's southern border wall?

To play both sides of an issue by subtly pandering—to go as the political winds dictate—typifies gelatinous RINOs, and polarizing liberals. Thanks to ongoing media spin, the electorate is likely to ignore Democrats' many untruths, but they will expose the GOP's lack of legislative accomplishments. At this rate, Mr. Graham will likely find himself, and his party, consigned to the minority after the 2018 midterm elections. Meanwhile, the debt keeps growing; the Obamacare repeal failed (by RINO John McCain's deciding vote); tax reform is uncertain; and the voters have lost faith in clearly feckless Congressional Republicans. Rather than embracing the daily opportunities to follow Trump's lead, this fork-tongued backbencher will find himself returned there.

Still, a cushy office, a six-figure salary, and the trappings of power are nice booby prizes. That's certainly enough to build the flagging self-esteem of the Jan Bradys of the world, anyway. But, if Sen. Graham wants to truly be a winner—like Marcia Brady, Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan—he needs to relentlessly champion conservatism via the priorities set forth by this president forthwith. To that end, focusing on the concerns of his fellow citizens—rather than parroting the bleeding heart narratives of the left—would be a vast improvement. In the final analysis, being an ineffectual RINO fosters scorn and mistrust from every corner. It guarantees failure: no matter which side Lindsey Graham finds himself on.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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