Primary Upset Shows Red Innards

The cannibalization of Democrats—now philosophically interchangeable with Bernie Sanders-style socialism—is fascinating (and deeply disturbing) to see.  What else explains last week's primary defeat of establishment candidate Rep. Joseph Crowley?  Shockingly, the fourth most powerful Democrat in Congress—a 10-term incumbent—pink-slipped by the voters of NY-14.  In Mr. Crowley's former slot now stands a genuine pinko: 28-year-old political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ah, à la Obama, another fresh-faced progressive spinning the old yarn of collectivism.  On NBC's “Meet the Press” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez mirrored the former “hope and change” president by stating, “I’m an educator, I’m an organizer. And I believe that what we’re really seeing is just a movement for health care, housing and education in the United States.”  Well, everyone values such things; the question is how they’re achieved.  In reality, capitalism already provides that to the most people of any economic system—with the added benefit of self-determination. 

Socialism is always based upon redistribution of government resources.  Therefore, in practice, this House nominee peddles de facto economic enslavement via perpetual government dependence.  That's not the American way.  In truth, it’s a complete abandonment of the principles that defined their party under JFK.  Would President Kennedy want higher taxes, single-payer healthcare, radical criminal justice “reform” to empty prisons, and open U.S. borders (by abolishing ICE)?  Furthermore, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s claim “Democrats are a big-tent party” is as hollow as her dystopian rhetoric.  By today’s standards, JFK’s policies place him slightly left of mainstream Republicans.  On that basis, Jack would be shown the door as unceremoniously as Joseph Crowley was. 

Would the late Norman Thomas, a fellow socialist, Presbyterian preacher and six-time presidential candidate, be that surprised by the unvarnished emergence of another democratic upstart?  Reverend Thomas famously prophesied that socialism would stealthily (and incrementally) arrive in America wearing the mantle of the Democratic Party.  In the modern era, it emerged with the failed campaign of Bernie Sanders in 2015.  That movement has gained a latest toehold with the unexpected victory of millennial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  The white and blue has been drained from the Democratic Party, but the red—at its metastasized heart—remains.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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 

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

Hillary's Hypocrisy Henchmen

“If it were not for double standards, liberals [politicians and the MSM] would have no standards at all.” - WMAL's conservative radio personality Chris Plante

When extreme leftist klansman David Duke announced public support for a Donald Trump presidency, the MSM wrongly smeared the Republican candidate for the endorsement. Honestly, in what sane world is any candidate responsible for any nutcase who chooses to back him? If American culture consistently demonstrates anything, it's that it takes all kinds of people freely making choices for their own reasons. That's democracy.

Yet, this jaded presentation of information was not journalism's objective reporting of facts, but naked partisanship based upon false innuendo. For starters, a racist, anti-suffrage klansman will never populate the party of Abraham Lincoln—Republicans then as now—that's the Democrats' department. Before one jumps to the erroneous conclusion that liberals aren't “that way” anymore, which of today's political parties bases its polarizing narratives on irrelevancies like gender identity? Which party's candidate says: 'elect me because I'm a woman?' Furthermore, which party successfully counted on another superficiality, that of race over the last eight disastrous years?

Even the educated are fooled that the Democrats “atoned” for their disgraceful pro-slavery history with the passage of Lyndon Baines Johnson's “holy grail”: the 1964 Civil Rights bill. However, what is always true of progressives—then with Johnson, now with Clinton—is that things below the surface of their media-spun actions don't line up with truth. At the time, LBJ admitted privately his real agenda:

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!”

Started in the 20^th century and carried forward, what accompanied the good anti-discrimination statutes were invisible economic chains that have tricked generations of minorities into the barest government-supported subsistence in exchange for becoming loyal Democratic voting blocs. This dynamic is better known as the Democrat's poverty plantation. How else does one explain 90% of Afro-Americans supporting Republicans in Lincoln's time, but only approximately 10% more recently?

Minorities are perpetually infantilized; convinced by Democrats via their MSM creature that obtaining a free identity card is a bridge too far to cross. That such a standard applied to anyone of voting age is somehow surreptitiously racist. Yet, as anyone sensible knows, an ID is a basic, modern necessity. How else does one open a bank account, get a job or legally drive a car? As president, only Barack Obama doesn't need one. While he habitually golfs with millionaires—and parties with billionaires—his wholly abandoned Chicago fellows eek out impoverished lives in inner city slums more dangerous than some Middle Eastern war zones. Only the most extraordinary individuals—a select few like Dr. Ben Carson—rise from such humble beginnings to enjoy our now debt-ridden capitalistic system. If Hillary's advocacy of Bernie Sanders' style socialism is the path to mass prosperity, wouldn't brainy Mr. Carson support her?

Speaking of unhinged support for a corrupt liar, we arrive at the funny farm of colorful characters that actually do endorse this Clintonian hydra of American scandal. While the media has ensured nutter David Duke is a household name, the powers-at-be have ignored John Bachtell. (“Jeopardy” champions, does that guy ring a bell for you?) Mr. Bachtell—an outspoken Hillary advocate—is the little known chairman of the Communist Party of the United States.

Think he's just an exception to the rule? Let's try the better known two-faced Seddique Mateen, a vocal Taliban supporter (read: pro-terrorism) and simultaneous lip service apologist for his jihadist, mass murdering son. (The younger Mateen, Omar, slaughtered 49 innocents at the Orlando gay nightclub, Pulse.) Unlike Trump, the “objective” press did not take Hillary Clinton to task for not disavowing Seddique's clapping presence at her Kissimmee rally (ironically featuring a speech about the tragedy). For his part, obviously, the elder Mateen felt quite comfortable in Mrs. Clinton's company. He even told a local TV affiliate: “I was invited by the Democratic Party.”

Naturally, the Clinton camp denied Seddique's claim—much as they habitually deny every unsavory reality related to their candidate. The press has not followed up on the matter. Nor are they ever likely to. Why? For one thing, 93% of journalists self-identify as Democrats. Moreover, as with all contemporary Clinton wrongdoing, one must heavily factor money into the equation (read: Clinton Cash). Thus, the larger answer lies in the fact that as of 2011, 6 conglomerates control 90% of the legacy media. Given all of the kid glove, fawning coverage of Hillary Clinton, what are the odds that virtually all of these corporate behemoths are not contributors to her “charitable foundation” and/or her presidential campaign?

As Charity-gate has already demonstrated, “dead broke” Hillary peddles high level government influence for an ill-gotten 238 million dollar personal fortune. Undoubtedly, the liberal media has met Mrs. Clinton's asking price. Therefore, they have both a philosophical bias and a substantial investment in her presidency. Simply put, the fix is in. In effect, the MSM functions as the propagandist arm of the anti-JFK Democratic Party. All of the above truths are easily obscured, buried under an avalanche of 24-hour MSM spin.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Using Welfare to Buy Elections

“The only time you even see the people is when you look down to see what it is you're stepping on.” — Bonnie Bedelia as Holly McClane in “Die Hard 2” (1990)

As originally conceived in 1964 with LBJ's “Great Society,” welfare programs were promoted as a temporary helping hand to give the downtrodden a leg up. Today, this blatant economic redistribution (read: War on Poverty) has metastasized in a multi-generational government dependence scheme. In essence, entitlement programs such as food stamps are de facto bribes directed mostly at minority groups loyal to Democrats. For progressives it's a simple numbers game: garnering enough votes to keep themselves perpetually in high elective office.

Recall that the bottom 60% of the population pays only 2% of federal income taxes. Therefore, this static underclass has virtually no economic skin the game as they are promised—in exchange for their ballots—more and more “free stuff” paid for by someone else. Vanquished Bolshevik Bernie Sanders' fantasy of “free” public college funded by the much demonized One Percenters comes to mind. In other words, why work when one makes almost as much by not working?

Cynical liberals like Nancy Pelosi (and her fellow travelers like Hillary Clinton) love welfare. To elitist dolts like her, food stamps and unemployment insurance payouts are laughably among “best ways to stimulate the economy.” This fascist millionaire of the political ruling class knows all too well: if you can influence an individual's stomach you can control their vote.

Despite an escalating $19.4 national debt, the cost of welfare is now well over $1 trillion dollars per year. In fact, the use of food stamps has become so common they are the go-to currency in many inner cities. At present, 45 million Americans depend on taxpayers to put food on their tables. Since taking office, Mr. Obama has added 5 million to that number, and 10 million more to the Medicaid rolls.

How is all of this government largesse “paid” for? By further raising economy-killing taxes as well as the debt ceiling (by borrowing, at interest, more money from Communist regimes like China). Hence, the reasons for the widespread economic malaise of the Obama years are laid bare. A booming welfare state and outsourced jobs (due to high corporate taxes and draconian regulations) have resulted in almost eight years of a largely stagnant economy—and 93 million able bodied Americans out of the workforce.

The cherry on the pie of this fiscal wasteland is the surprising revelation that illegal alien recipients are paid approximately $1,000 dollars more in U.S. welfare benefits than American citizens. So, despite this clear economic drain, the unchecked criminality (such as the murder of innocents like American Kate Steinle), the violent drug trade and the ever present danger of radical Islamic terrorism, Hillary Clinton supports an open border policy. Why? Beyond an unquenchable lust for power, the amoral Clintons are all about self-interest via political calculations. To this end, her hope of future amnesty for this underclass of foreign invaders (border jumping squatters and those illegally overstaying visas) forms yet another cultivated voting bloc for her ilk to steal elections by diluting the will of the American people.

Related to welfare as a political tool of manipulation, we've come full circle back to the politician who started it all, Lyndon B. Johnson. At the time, this first modern progressive president said privately, “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!” Like LBJ, Hillary Clinton is a disdainful creature (read: Server-gate) who counts on the duped and the poor (whom she cares nothing for) to realize her own longstanding presidential ambitions.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Millennials: Pokemon 'Dopeyman'

The soft bigotry of low expectations now plagues America's political landscape. Disconnected millennials—likely rabid former socialist Bernie Sanders supporters, now tepid Hillary ones—play the latest video game fad, the Pokemon Go app. To the uninitiated, the players walk outdoors in the real world hunting virtual creatures such as Golems, Porygons and Dragonites. (These characters appear on the screens of their smartphones.) So utterly distracted are they, one can literally walk into walls or oncoming traffic. So, actual risk to life and limb is worth playing a nostalgic video game?

What a perfect analogy to their abject cluelessness. As an example, politically speaking, they have no concept of the danger of electing yet another Clinton president. Why else would they support the ruling class of liberal fascists masquerading as lying Democrats? Unfortunately, they have been weaned in a coddled culture that awards everyone a school trophy for simply “showing up.” That's high school; however, college is no better. No matter the subject matter or type of degree, every parchment now issued is a BS in liberal indoctrination (many with pricey 6-figure prize tags). Therefore, when millennials get into a pressurized scenario, like a job (assuming they can find one at all with 93 million unemployed) they are utterly unprepared to cope.

Speaking of another petulant person completely out of his depth is Barack Obama. Straight out of a bright and shiny millennial fantasy, he just “showed up” (on the political scene) and was foolishly handed the U.S. presidency, not once but twice. What of note had BHO accomplished as junior senator from Illinois? Nothing. The same was true less then a year in office when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, Mr. Obama's ongoing, bowing and scraping apology tour to leftist dictators the world over hardly equates to the Nobel's “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy between peoples.” The reality remains that during his failed tenure radical Islamic terrorism has spread like pernicious brush fires all over the globe. America has been a non-entity overseas due to Mr. Obama's “leadership from behind.” As a pro-Islamic ideologue with a murky upbringing, his administration's feckless, surrendering “negotiation” will likely lead directly to a soon-to-be nuclear Iran. And as this greatest state sponsor of terrorism inevitably grows in influence so too will an ever-flourishing ISIS. Like fist in glove, the two go together.

What greatly assisted Mr. Obama's reelection was the artificial muzzle of political correctness. People were afraid (even to themselves) of being labeled “racist” for not voting for America's first black president, so they did. Yet, in retrospect, Barack Obama's hope has been non-existent; his nebulous change has been radically un-American. Specifically, for 7 ½ years he has demonized police as “stupid” and/or “racist.” Hence, Black Lives Matter anarchy. They cause and/or inspire the burning cities of Baltimore, MD and Ferguson, MO. And the latest tragic domino effect: commonplace assassinations of police in New York, and most recently in Dallas.

Who else but he has so politically polarized our society (with the water-carrying MSM distracting from his multitude of failures)? Like a noxious witches' brew, his media minions have dutifully stirred the simmering pot of racial tensions repeatedly to boil. Now, Obama suddenly pivots at a memorial service in Dallas, suddenly expressing “pride” in murdered police? (This flip-flopping hypocrisy mirrors his “evolution” on gay marriage. That, too, was a naked political calculation: designed not to promote equal rights, only to shore up a lost campaign funding source.) His Johnny-come-lately pro-cop pronouncement is no different. Why else would he say “how inadequate my own words have been” and “we're not as divided as we seem”? This is the same self-serving lip service that has defined his presidency. A feeble, last minute legacy-preserving attempt to change the tone of his last 6 months in office. One can easily imagine the colorful language MLK would have for this charlatan.

In the final analysis, Barack Obama is as happily oblivious as millennials' playing Pokemon Go. As history has already demonstrated, he is completely out of touch with the world as it is—and heedless to its dangers. Yet, the President and his family have nothing to worry about. Via one of Mr. Obama's executive orders, lifelong Secret Service protection has already been arranged. On the other hand, game-playing millennials—tracked and cornered like sheep by criminals—won't be so safe. Pokemon's apt and ironic catchphrase: “Gotta catch 'em all!”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Hillary's Nuclear-sized Crookedness

“A major Clinton Foundation donor who gave at least $250,000 to the organization was granted a spot on [the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB)] … despite having no experience for the role” briefly reports Washington Times's Douglas Ernst (Inside Politics blurb section, page two). Like Server-gate—just with nukes and America's foreign posture—Hillary intentionally shares State Department secrets with an unqualified benefactor. If this pay to play isn't worth a full, front page exposé, what is?

Peter Schweizer's book “Clinton Cash” demonstrated the well established Clinton pattern of (foreign) donors funneling hundreds of million of dollars to their “charitable organization,” the Clinton Foundation, in exchange for Hillary's governmental favors as Mr. Obama's then Secretary of State. The present unearthed duplicity involves Rajiv K. Fernando. As founder and former CEO of Chicago's Chopper Trading, he had no background in intelligence matters. That was obviously no problem for Mrs. Clinton. When Mr. Fernando's check cleared back in 2011, he magically become a shaper of U.S. nuclear weapons policy. A Hillary “adviser” with top secret government clearance to access and influence (perhaps even share?) classified foreign policy details.

Naturally, the State Department tried to cover up the blatant political cronyism that has defined the “honest and transparent” Obama Administration. Only a Freedom of Information lawsuit by Citizens United has finally brought a spotlight's hot glow to this wrongdoing. Fortunately, at the time, embarrassment of exposure prompted Mr. Fernando's sudden resignation only days after his announced appointment. (The State Department was unable to articulate a legitimate reason for him to remain. Perhaps that's because he didn't belong there in the first place.)

What has become of Rajiv K. Fernando? Per ABC News, his current donations to the Clinton Foundation have increased to $1 to $5 million. Therefore, rest assured, he's still a mover and shaker in 2016. Specifically, he's a Democrat superdelegate: same as Hillary's hubby Bill. One somehow doubts either man will cast his upcoming presidential convention vote for socialist Bernie Sanders.

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' true-life lemonade failure

In February, when “D.C. government's dysfunctional lemonade stand,” was published in “Canada Free Press,” it was intended as something written in metaphor. Today, it turns out not to be that, but a concept both factual and prescient.

As a political stunt, D.C. politicians decided to set up a lemonade stand to highlight Equal Pay Day, the annual reminder of the gender pay-gap in which women, on average, are paid less than men. Yet, this was not done to rightfully protest, as examples, Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton's track records on the subject. Specifically, unchanged over almost two full Obama presidential terms, pay for female staffers is 13 percent less than their male counterparts. Meanwhile, “feminist icon” Hillary is no better: only 72 cents was paid to women in her Senate office. As with everything these two do—beyond law (read: Obama's executive orders), precedent (read: Hillary's Server-gate) or even Constitutional prohibitions (read: Obama's pen and phone), both, as usual, get a complete pass.

Speaking of a pass, D.C. politicians didn't even bother to get one when they illegally set up shop at the Capitol Hill South Metro Station for their one-day lemonade venture. Like these folks incompetently run the country, there were a host of problems right out of the gate. As likely capitalism-phobic, the Democrats were completely unaware that a charity, Amateur Athletic Union, was already lawfully selling (heavenly) Kripsy Kreme donuts on the very same spot. (Game over!) Even the weather they habitually publicly renounce conspired against them: who wants lemonade on a cool, April showers rush-hour morning commute? To make matters worse, due to the lack of authorization, the station manager called transit police.

Ah, if only that contentious conversation between lawmakers and law enforcement had taken place! Given D.C.'s generally lackadaisical response time for emergency personnel, the ten women from the DNC had already abandoned post for the standard-priced fare of the more hospitable Peet's Coffee. While there, did they demand a discount based upon their gender? No, but that would have made their intended political statement. Yet, as the police apparently never caught up these female scalawags, I assume they gratefully paid the whole tab for their warming beverages.

The point of their badly-run lemonade stand was to highlight a gender-based economic discrepancy. These politicians intended on charging a woman 79 cents (reflecting the average women's wage) versus charging a man a dollar (his average wage). Displaying a juvenile hand-colored sign: “Lemonade. Boys $1.00, Girs (scandalously misspelled with no “l”) 79 cents. Another glaring flaw, their business plan: no permit means no right to sell. That means only accepting a “suggested donation.” Of course, this actuality defeats the entire purpose of the exercise in the first place. As a parallel to their similarly incompetent governance, both leave a bad taste in the mouth (read: the failed Obama Administration) and an empty wallet (read: the escalating 19 trillion debt).

Regardless of their stated “agenda,” what does this stunt really say about the character of those who set it up (read: the government's bureaucratic take over of one-sixth of the economy known as Obamacare)? For starters, earning a hefty salary of $174,000, don't these supposed adults have more productive ways to spend time representing the interests of their constituents? Second, either these lawmakers were too disorganized—or worse, completely blasé—regarding the requirement to get a permit. (Apparently, for them, permits—like rules—are only for the rest of us, the “little people.”) Third, as this situation conclusively demonstrates, Democrats are not concerned with solving concrete problems, they are interested in political polarization. In this case, “serving” bogus 'war on women' propaganda.

Same as Mr. Obama, his lemon-pushing compatriots “lead from behind”—assuming they lead at all. Their focus is wrongly on these non-issues rather than legitimate ones like 93 million able-bodied Americans out of the workforce. They “hawk lemonade” politically too in the form of self-serving pandering under the guise of relief (read: government dependence, multi-generational social welfare programs). Yet, this subsistence living is precisely like the sour drink they peddle on Equal Pay Day: it does not refresh (as upward mobility capitalism does), it just keeps the masses alienated and angry at their fellow citizens—and not incidentally—voting Democrat. Therefore, these elitists stay perpetually in power despite abject failures—and same as Mr. Obama—live high on the hog while doing so.

In the same vein as Equal Pay Day is the good-sounding push for a $15 dollar minimum wage. As with these politician's failed lemonade stand, it promises superficial “sweets” in the form of a wage increase. However, McDonald's can only charge so much for a hamburger (the amount a typical customer will spend) and that figure directly determines how much any given employee can be paid. Therefore, for any company to remain viable, economics—not artificial government mandates—must determine wages. In other words, the “bottom line,” or costs, must be respected as well as the interests of investors. Therefore, the government purveyors who push this “lemonade” are completely obvious—and/or just don't care—that the policy they advocate will actually have the opposite effect and price existing (and future) employees out of the marketplace.

Why should this matter to them? The establishments of both parties habitually run the federal government “red” on money borrowed from countries like China, at interest. When this gargantuan, nation-crushing bill finally comes due to future American generations, they all know they will likely be long gone. (Do-nothing Republicans versus wrongdoing Democrats: some choice!) Yet, let me be clear: as no respecters of America, Democrats are far worse. As an apt analogy to their intentionally divisive style of politics (that keep these responsibility-phobic, finger-pointing progressives in office), the “problem” is never with them, it is always to be found “elsewhere.”

In the final analysis, how is this obtuse disconnect from reality different from these progressives' Chicken Little mindset to the hypothetical “danger” of changing weather patterns versus the real-life life and limb threat of radical Islamic terrorism (recently seen in Belgium and Paris)? What is obvious is these educated and highly-paid people can't even run a child's lemonade stand properly or efficiently. Is it any wonder that these insulated powerbrokers have run the country into the ground? By any mathematical measure, the Obama Administration—aided greatly by a capitulating Paul Ryan-John Boehner Congress—has wrecked the joint like a monster traffic pile-up. Further, so out of touch are they from the American Way, Democrats are contemplating nominating an outspoken Socialist, Bernie Sanders, for U.S. president. Indeed, when a Maoist ornament winds up on the White House Christmas tree, these people don't know what country they are actually living in. Beyond that, they can't even doing the small things correctly.

Not even a single day of successfully turning lemons into lemonade. No doubt a natural consequence of years of Democrats mindlessly drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Obama's true-life “nanny” state

As past is prologue, flashback to February of 2008.  Way back then—even before Mr. Obama's first term election—Michelle Obama said of her hubby, “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”  Rest assured, like the Oracle at Delphi, that's a woman to read the Obama tea leaves by.

In retrospect of a more than 7 transpired years of a largely dictatorial and ultra-Constitutional (“I have a pen, I have a phone”) presidency, this nebulous and foreboding nugget is now as clear as glass.  Mr. Obama's totalitarian promise of interference in the lives of average, private citizens extends to truly remarkable and unprecedented lengths.

Apparently, the White House has waded effortlessly into big-government, “do-gooder” fascism.  While the year is technically 2016, the uneasy chill feels like Orwell's “1984” in Mr. Obama's sly Big Brother attempt to usurp parental control of child-rearing.  I coyly refer to the intimate activity of protecting babies' bums from diaper rash with their “well-meaning” initiative of low-cost diapers.  From on high, it is Mr. Obama's literal manifestation of cradle-to-grave government dependence.

After all, despite thousands of years of human societies, how else are people old enough to sire children expected to raise them if not for this Bernie Sanders-style “free” government largesse?

Think those diapers are expensive now?  Wait 'til “junior poopy pants” grows up, can't find work (due to the lasting domino effect of Obama’s present day job-killing economic policies) and that 20 trillion Chinese bill for government funds borrowed at interest (read: the debt) comes due.  By then, this whole next generation of Americans will really be knee-deep in the brown stuff.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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