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

Democrats Play Misty For Me

From a political perspective, Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner's true bravery was coming out publicly as Republican, not transgender. In Hollywood (a cliche of hypocritical limousine liberals like Angelina Jolie) being Republican is equivalent to a 21st century Underground Railroad. Something hidden and said in whispers: "to the right, to freedom!" When making such a public pronouncement, one either has to be untouchable—an industry titan like Clint Eastwood—or suffer Stacey Dash's fate of being blackballed, and fired by her representation (CESD, secured only last September). Ms. Dash said, “I just lost my agent because of my political beliefs.” As a modern day virtual Harriet Tubman, might our country be better served by putting Ms. Dash's face on that 20 dollar bill?

That's something America's first black president would never advocate. Why not? Because everything progressive Barack Obama does is literally a skin-deep political calculation. Therefore, as Ms. Dash is conservative, her views don't fit his fascist worldview. For example, Mr. Obama's “conversion” to gay marriage proponent wasn't about equal rights, it was about pumping a dwindling funding source. (And everybody knows: Mr. Obama is all about fundraising. Similarly, corrupt Hillary Clinton is all about the Benjamins in “Clinton Cash”.)

To Democrats, what the almighty dollar buys—political power—is their god. They care nothing for the rule of law unless it dovetails with their “1984” style hard left agenda. Likewise, they care nothing for the lives of their supporters (read: the death toll in Chicago). Minorities are simply pawns on a chess board to be manipulated—and sacrificed. Speaking of pawns, the Democrat Party is running two transgender candidates, both coincidentally named Misty. Is it just me or does Misty Snow (Utah) and Misty Plowright (Colorado) sound like the stage names for adult entertainers rather than serious political contenders? In any case, they both have a porn star's shot at success. Even the Democrats acknowledge that amounts to zero in November.

Recall that Utah has not elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate during Misty Snow's 30 years of life. As Democrats are all about political power, bet your bottom dollar they would field a more traditional candidate if they had any possibility of winning. Since they don't, they very happily make empty political gestures that cost them nothing:

“We're going to lose anyway; we might as well make a statement about inclusion,” gay state Sen. Jim Dabakis (D-UT) told the Associated Press.

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

Missing toilet paper and asinine Democrats

In America, toilet paper is so plentiful, it's like it grows on trees or something. It's literally available everywhere. From big-box stores with industrial-sized multi-packs to conventional local retailers to neighborhood convenience stores. It's even available in dollar stores for the frugal. Likewise, it is found in unexpected places such as technology specialists like Staples. (Why does one need to buy toilet paper with one's new internet-ready laptop? Let's not speculate.) Yet, regardless of the quality of the business, all of these vendors have the same thing in common: all are for-profit, Capitalist enterprises. In fact, despite the obviously rabid competition, the U.S. toilet paper marketplace is so robust novelty stores like Spencer's carry Obama toilet paper (or Hillary, if that is your preference for a no doubt chafing bum-wipe). Compare this circumstance with that of the Socialist government of Venezuela infamous for their toilet paper shortages—among other basic staples like soap, coffee, milk or sugar. Indeed, if the unlikely Socialist Bernie Sanders comes to power, how will his empty-headed millennial supporters enjoy their Sharia law-compliant Starbucks when the aforementioned ingredients are unavailable? No doubt there will be a collective gnashing of teeth as these minions stand in Socialist-inspired unemployment lines snaking around the block without their pacifying $6.00 European-style cups of Joe.

Could average Americans imagine staying at a luxury hotel—or a Budget Inn for that matter—where one must bring their own toilet paper along with other toiletries like bars of soap? That was true in Russia in the 1990s and it's true of Venezuela today. In 16 years of Chavista rule, the brown stuff has hit the fan—and there's isn't enough Charmin in the whole country to clean it up. Capitalism is an economic high tide that raises all boats. Contrarily, Democrats' divisive speeches about “inequality” are intended to place everyone—except naturally themselves, the ruling elite—in the same boat of lowered prospects of government dependence. This is the Democrat's political plantation and Bernie and Hillary are the odd couple mismanaging the funny farm.

To this end, Sanders' brays about class warfare, economic differences of the one-percenters he demonizes for not paying enough—even though they're almost 50% of the tax base. Not to be undone, pot-stirring kitchen wench Hillary promotes gender and racial discord. Despite subtly different tacks, both appeal to the basest human instincts: hatred, envy and intolerance. Like wicked pied pipers, they feed their followers a noxious societal stew that transforms America á la Obama by ripping it apart by its seams. Their political wedges serve as personal stepping stones to higher office. While the masses eke out low-rent existences in dilapidated, government-run housing projects, they live in palatial estates. Think Imelda Marcus' cavernous closet of designer shoes or Saddam Hussein's palace of golden toilets. Let me be clear: Democrats/Socialists care not one whit for the public's well-being, only wielding political power. Their scandal-prone liar of a front-runner Hillary Clinton's only pressing concern is not her likely criminality, it is her electability.

Less tenacious politicians might worry about federal indictment related to Server-gate or “Clinton Cash” influence-bartering, but not Hillary. She knows Mr. Obama's Justice Department is compromised and will not prosecute for a simple political reality: she's the only game in town. Likewise, she will never worry about “wiping” things with a cloth (or something else with paper products) beyond the 30,000 emails from her private computer server. Indeed, she exists in the protective bubble of the Secret Service she ironically despises—among the trappings of vast wealth: mansions, limousines and private jets. She of the 6-figure speaking fee is so out-of-touch with her fellow citizens, she hasn't driven a car in decades (1996) let alone worry about paying the rent or where her next meal is coming from. With 7 years of economic downturn under Obama, no rational person would publicly praise the worst president in modern memory unless to publicly convey that she will benefit him personally by continuing his “legacy.” Indeed, to sabotage her presidential ambitions would likely result in the election of a repealing-Republican president; an absolutely abhorrent alternative to the current occupant of the Oval Office.

With an ever-rising 19 trillion debt and a host of dire problems at home and abroad, the electorate will be whistling past the graveyard that is American Capitalist prosperity under the yolk of 4 more years of a Socialist/Democrat. With 93 million able-bodied Americans out of the workforce, the present administration already lies about the absurdity of a 4.9% unemployment rate. Should the future feature the new-normal of mass shortages, bread lines, black markets and blatant theft by unassailable government officials á la Russia?

These universal calling cards of Socialism are heralded surprisingly by an absence of toilet paper. Loss of such a bathroom necessity concretely demonstrates that the Democratic/Socialism on offer by Hillary/Bernie fails miserably everywhere it is tried. Including, historically, here, when it was tried by the Pilgrims in 1620. The Pilgrim's lesson: without the incentive of profit for hard work, why be productive at all? It's common sense, basic human nature Bernie and Hillary are completely oblivious to. Today's version of the “workers' paradise” these rascals promote is a pipe dream, another dystopian hope-and-change nightmare. Those unfortunates metaphorically flushing their votes for Burnie or Hillary should start hoarding the TP now.

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

Angry voters' choice: new face or Clinton devil?

Americans will take a lot, but they will not tolerate the continuing destruction of their nation by elites in both parties who believe they are untouchable. – Monica Crowley

In the final analysis (while I affirm Ms. Crowley's optimistic tone) maybe so, maybe not. Indeed, it's scary when such monumental world-shaping choices are seemingly left to the whims of fate. Recall 2012, despite obvious foreign and domestic policy disasters, Mr. Obama—an utterly failed, ultra-Constitutional, pathologically liar of a 1984-style despot—was re-elected. At the time, the combination of a not-quite so conservative Republican candidate Mitt Romney (who would never take the gentlemanly gloves off to fight for the presidency) coupled with 4 years of MSM propaganda Obama-covering slop force-fed to the American electorate resulted in millions of Republicans staying home. Mercifully, may that not be the case this time.

Mr. Trump (and to a lesser extent the more steady and viable Ted Cruz) is channeling the very apparent “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take this anymore” sentiments of the unhinged UBS news anchor Howard Beale (a fictional character played to Oscar glory by Peter Finch in 1976’s Network). And the political powers-that-be on both sides of the aisle better take heed: it is not the first time a long-shot political neophyte has upset the Establishment, causing a populist phenomenon that landed an unexpected person in the White House.

As past is prologue, the man that surprisingly wound up vice president, the famously gaff-prone Joe Biden, made an off-the-cuff remark on January 31, 2007 that inadvertently encapsulated the overall political mood of the country:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man.”

Only in Mr. Biden's wholly devoted and feverish mind has Mr. Obama been “the first” in anything. Further, despite bizarre and back-handed praise, Mr. Obama's on the job performance has been the opposite of “storybook” unless one considers the novels of prolific horror novelist Stephen King. In any case, the man with the curious habits of publicly groping women not his spouse—and swimming pool skinny dipping in front of female Secret Service agents—can attest to the cleanliness part: he's been providing slavish metaphorical tongue-baths to his boss for the last 7 years.

Upon reflection, Mr. Obama was elected as a protest to then unpopular George W. Bush and, by extension, the dynastic Bush family name (hence younger brother Jeb's current failure to gain political traction despite deep pockets and spending 50 million). To parallel, while Donald Trump may very well ride the anti-Obama, anti-incumbency fervor to the presidency in 2017, I'm willing to bet that America will not take another chance, this time on an untested Republican wild card. In any case, to his credit, The Donald gives as much guff as he gets. (It is therefore some comfort that at least one Republican candidate will fight to “make America great again.”) He'll need to in the face-off between the tag team that is Hillary Clinton and her devoted Goliath propagandist creature, the MSM.

I don’t know if the scribe of “The Art of the Deal” will get the Republican nomination, but from day-one Hillary's coronation as her party's nominee was certain. Therefore, the musing of numerous conservative experts make for good TV fodder and fill many newspaper column inches, but do any of them seriously believe for a moment—hand to Bible—that an unapologetic Socialist like Bernie Sanders will get the nomination? Despite a topsy-turvy political cycle, a recent Fox poll put that probability at 17%. To the detriment of the country, Mrs. Clinton is—and remains—the only Democratic game in town. So, Bill's checkered past as a Lothario doesn't matter. She need to do little more than show up, grin, and bear the slings and arrows that have been coming her way for 25 years. (That's old hat: what else has she accomplished over all this time?)  Mrs. Clinton understands her enviable position: a 50/50 probability to the Oval Office. Those are way better odds than any other candidate on the political landscape—and there will be no political upstart à la Obama to derail things this time around.

The slight monkey wrenches in the latest Clintonian White House political calculation (that Hill and Bill are all about) are two-fold. The most obvious is the brash personality and plain-speaking style of Donald Trump. In her favor is the fact that she will be gifted the nomination he (or someone else) will have to fight very hard for. The fact that she is part of Washington’s elitist beltway bubble is counterbalanced (she hopes) by the superficial triviality of her gender à la Joe Biden's view of “firsts.” She has nothing else to run on, but doesn't need to. She's been given a complete pass for every equivocation, every outright lie and every sleazy corruption scandal thus far. Once again in this, history will repeat itself.

The FBI will likely do its Hillary-gate investigations in good faith. Then, the decisions pass to Mr. Obama and his Justice Department. The threat of federal indictment—Hillary's own personal sword of Damocles—will be a petty torment likely enjoyed by Mr. Obama. Especially given the report that there is no personal love lost between them. However, as everything with Democrats is party first, last and always, he will not derail her progress in favor of a last minute highly dicey John Kerry run or a laughable Biden one. To do so invites the probability of a Republican that will undo an America-damaging legacy he is so proud of. Therefore, Mr. Obama will content himself by making Mrs. Clinton sweat for a while under the bright lights of potential prosecution. It won't work: the ongoing shadow of scandal is just par for the course for any politician with the Clinton surname.

Complicating matters on the other side of the aisle is Paul Ryan-led Republicans who foolishly continued to fund things they promised to fight like Obamacare. The repeal bill was a hollow victory: necessary, but ultimately little more than symbolic. However, the act of appropriating actual money is not symbolic, it is very real—indicating that Mr. Ryan and his cronies are not “change,” but more of the same ilk of go-along-get-along politicians that have further alienated the public. In this same vein is funding Planned Parenthood and Obama's executive amnesty for illegal aliens. Indeed, 7 years of Republican coddling—and an outrageous lack of political backbone—are just as likely to make the electorate understandably skittish of new Republican leaders as they are of old Democratic ones.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, if elected will Mr. Trump simply be a Republican version of Mr. Obama: another arrogant, inflexible, petulant blowhard? Or will it be the equally entitled, greedy, immoral “queen of mean” that is Mrs. Clinton’s reputation? If Trump loses he goes back to his business empire; Mrs. Clinton to her ill-gotten, influence-bartering “Clinton Cash” fortune. The real sword of Damocles hangs not over their heads, but ours (as we are not similarly bankrolled.)

I suspect that fate will turn on the small issues of steadfastness, trustworthiness and mostly likability. That will leave galvanizing Mr. Trump and polarizing Mrs. Clinton too extreme to successfully navigate the political turbulence. That leaves many worthy Republicans particularly Ted Cruz as perhaps our best option in 2017.

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

Deconstructing the Trump phenomenon

From the perspective of all of us “average Joes,” I think it is fair comment that virtually anyone running for U.S. president these days is, by definition, a shameless self-promoter—with something of a God-complex—or a loose screw.  With the multitude of problems in the world, who would want the pressures that come to bear or that fish bowl existence?

Although likely to flame out as shooting stars are wont to do, Mr. Trump is channeling the very real “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take this anymore” sentiments of the unhinged UBS news anchor Howard Beale (a fictional character played to Oscar glory by Peter Finch in 1976’s Network).  And the political powers-that-be on both sides of the aisle better take heed: it is not the first time a long-shot political neophyte has caused a populist phenomenon that has led to the White House.   

That being said, the MSM is squarely taking aim at “The Donald,” busy crafting another superficial bogeyman of a monopoly comb-over caricature (only minus the mustache and the monocle).  This is the same playbook effectively used to pigeonhole Romney as an out of touch/white/rich/Republican elitist.  Sound familiar? However, unlike Mr. Romney (who was too busy playing the gentlemanly elder statesman to take the gloves off and fight for the presidency), Mr. Trump gives as much guff as he gets. 

Whether viewed as good, bad or indifferent, Donald Trump is the genuine article, himself: a colorful, bombastic creature of Capitalism—and the fundamental American principles of freedom, self-determination, free-speaking and respect for law—rather than a bowing apologist traveling the world on bended knee (Obama) or the blasé blamer of Benghazi (Hillary) on the nonsensical, a video.

I don’t know if the scribe of “The Art of the Deal” is truly electable—only time will tell­—but there is no doubt more than six years in that the American people have gotten a raw deal at every turn with the disastrous Obama administration.  Mr. Trump has the skill set to do much better: in the true Machiavellian fashion of exaggerating one’s hand, outright lying or otherwise outmaneuvering one’s opponent across a bargaining table, Mr. Trump excels.  And unlike the leading Democratic nominee (who has likely bartered favorable government influence to cronies to amass a personal fortune known as the “Clinton Cash” scandal), “The Donald” has a legitimate and undisputable track record of success.  After all, one’s name doesn’t end up on the side of Manhattan skyscrapers for nothing.

Detractors of Mr. Trump criticize him for his brashness (as if plain-speaking is some kind of Orwellian thought-crime in the Democrat’s politically correct nomenclature), because of his willingness to shoot from the hip by call things what they actually are.  An important example: border-jumpers are an underclass of illegal alien “invaders,” not misunderstood immigrants.  That is precisely what is causing “The Donald’s” surge in the polls.  It turns out Americans find refreshing people who take the common sense approach (little seen inside Washington’s elitist beltway bubble) of forcefully articulating what the suffering, silent majority of average citizens, like me, is thinking.  The surprise here is one needn’t have the warmth or charisma of a Ronald Reagan; one resonates to the truth of the message even while remaining unsure about the caliber of its speaker.

Indeed, Americans are beyond fatigued with the “don’t trust your lying eyes” mantra of hell or high water agenda-driven progressive Democrats.  The electorate is starved for truth-telling leaders who will level with them, especially when most circumstances in the future are likely to be quite dire.  That’s not Barack Obama and it’s certainly not Hillary Clinton: Democrats who have gotten a complete pass for every equivocation, every outright lie and every sleazy scandal thus far.  

Similarly, the MSM attacks Mr. Trump for his social status, but largely ignores the fact that “public servant” Hillary is also famous and fabulously wealthy, living in mansions, riding in private planes and limousines.  Certainly, Mrs. Clinton’s lavish lifestyle does not disqualify her from her obsessive presidential ambitions.  However, the difference between the two is as Mr. Trump is already a self-made  billionaire—possessing all the money, fame and power of perhaps an incorruptible Midas—while Hillary (and her aptly named former president hubby, Bill) have repeatedly attached dollar signs to their self-serving loyalty.

In many ways, Mr. Trump is the wild card in American politics.  But, so was Barack Obama when America took a terrible gamble on him, twice.  Yet, “The Donald” is not likely to be the petulant, empty-suited, dilettante of a joker Mr. Obama has turned out to be or the entitled, greedy, “queen of mean” that is Mrs. Clinton’s reputation.  If elected, maybe Mr. Trump will actually work for the greater good of the average American.  If so, that’s more than most currently in public office are doing.

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

Hillary breaks silence, offers platitude cake

To quote she who would be president in 2016—and has been skirting press questions for almost a month with a wink and a smile—Hillary Clinton was finally shamed into answering a few of the press' questions by Fox News reporter Ed Henry.  Her imperious, smirking response: “Yeah, maybe when I finish talking to the people here.  How’s that?  I might, I’ll have to ponder it.”  Then, pretending to write on a notepad, she added, “I’ll put it on my list for due consideration.”  In this, Mrs. Clinton finally deigned—under her own terms—to break her self-imposed silence.  This attitude parallels Server-gate (modern day Nixonian document shredding): her destruction of 33,000 emails—half of those created on her private server as Secretary of State—that she now infers is government property.  Indeed, for she who wants to sit in the big chair in the Oval Office, how can the American people objectively get a complete picture of her performance in that previous role with 50 percent of the picture forever obscured? 

Continuing to ignore the shrieking, chest-pounding 300 pound gorilla in the corner, Mrs. Clinton steadfastly refuses to finally address her own dismal record of veracity considering the still unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, the before mentioned Server-gate, and the most recent in a long list of Clintonian scandals, the multi-faceted Charity-gate.  Regarding the latter, she offered vague platitudes: “I am so proud of the foundation.  I'm proud of the work that it has done and is doing… I'll let the American people make their own judgments.”  Shadowed in this Clintonian malfeasance is the fact of 1,100 foreign donors mysteriously not reported by the Clinton Foundation; her and Bill's supposed family charity.  That little nugget comes literally right on the heels of Peter Schweizer's exposé of the Hillary Clinton-Bill Clinton fiscal shell game, "Clinton Cash," of bartering favorable U.S. government treatment through the State Department she headed (her role) to the mostly foreign donors who gave exorbitant, six-figure speaking fees to Bill (his role) or otherwise donated large sums of money to the charity á la George Stephanopoulos.

For any clarity at all, one must look to the Hillary speech the fourth estate has dubbed 'Bonds of Trust' for any indication of where she stands: "From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable." Yet, while she hypocritically pontificates upon broken trust between the black community and the police she completely ignores her own severe lack of honesty and forthrightness when it comes to explaining her own behavior and actions to the American people.

It is interesting dynamic when a politician with her own severe trustworthiness deficit lectures the rest of us on trust: "We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans.  Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society, restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets, between and among neighbors, and even people with whom we disagree politically."  So desperate is she to distract—and point the finger away from her own lack of character—that she, in essence, panders to the violent street mob and further galvanizes a volatile situation by demonizing the cops á la Obama.  Her and Obama's Saul Alinsky-style political smoke screens have a direct correlation to the tear gas in the street: this is what happens when those charged with safeguarding the country use the bully pulpit to foment anti-American sentiment and tear society apart along racial lines.

Apparently Mrs. Clinton, who like her husband before her, is inartfully combining the Clintonian mantra of "say anything to get elected" with the Obama brand of destructive, divisive Democratic politics of "never letting a crisis go to waste" for personal and political gain.  Through her Orwellian words, she claims the intention to unite, but in actually she desires the opposite: to polarize and divide.  She knows all too well that an unhappy populace votes Democrat.  Remember her and Bill's single greatest character flaw from which all their lies, greed and hubris stem: their obsessive self-serving power-seeking.

Her blasé, disingenuous Marie Antoinette 'let-them-eat-cake' persona demonstrates that she—who seeks to lead the rest of us—owes nothing.  In this, her silence bellows stentorian that she is unfit to be the next president of the United States.

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

In Hillary’s Orwellian circle of trust

To quote she who would be president in 2016, in a speech the press has dubbed 'Bonds of Trust:' "From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable." Yet, while she hypocritically pontificates upon broken trust between the black community and the police she completely ignores her own severe lack of honesty and forthrightness when it comes to explaining her own behavior and actions to the American people.

Ignoring the shrieking, chest-pounding 300 pound gorilla in the corner, Mrs. Clinton refuses to finally address her own dismal record of veracity considering the still unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, Server-gate (modern day Nixonian document shredding) and the most recent in a long list of Clintonian scandals, the multi-faceted Charity-gate.  This week's latest revelation of Clintonian malfeasance includes 1,100 foreign donors who were mysteriously not reported by the Clinton Foundation; her and Bill's supposed family charity.  That little nugget comes literally right on the heels of Peter Schweizer's expose of the Hillary Clinton-Bill Clinton fiscal shell game, "Clinton Cash," of bartering favorable U.S. government treatment through the State Department she headed (her role) to the mostly foreign donors who gave exorbitant, six-figure speaking fees to Bill (his role) or otherwise donated large sums of money to the charity.

It is interesting dynamic when a politician with her own severe trustworthiness deficit lectures the rest of us on trust: "We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans. Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society, restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets, between and among neighbors, and even people with whom we disagree politically."  So desperate is she to distract—and point the finger away from her own lack of character—that she, in essence, panders to the violent street mob and further galvanizes a volatile situation by demonizing the cops a la Obama.  Her and Obama's Saul Alinsky-style political smoke screens have a direct correlation to the tear gas in the street: this is what happens when those charged with safeguarding the country use the bully pulpit to foment anti-American sentiment and tear society apart along racial lines.

Apparently Mrs. Clinton, who like her husband before her, is inartfully combining the Clintonian mantra of "say anything to get elected" with the Obama brand of destructive, divisive Democratic politics of "never letting a crisis go to waste" for personal and political gain.  Through her Orwellian words, she claims the intention to unite, but in actually she desires the opposite: to polarize and divide.  She knows all too well that an unhappy populace votes Democrat.  Remember her and Bill's single greatest character flaw from which all their lies, greed and hubris stem: their obsessive self-serving power-seeking.

The first one strapped with the body cameras she now advocates should be Mrs. Clinton herself.  So the rest of us can monitor her.  A lie detector should closely follow.  If she can't pass that test then she has no business being the next president of the United States.

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

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