Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Obama's “Hillary” Offensive

President Obama's political slow-roll related to Hillary Clinton's unsecured, private server has officially begun. Unfortunately, conservatives don't watch Mr. Obama's usual sycophantic haunts like the low-rated MSNBC (where, for example, another liar—similarly disgraced former NBC anchor Brian Williams—was put out to pasture, apparently never to be heard from again). Recall, “Fox News” and their motto “fair and balanced” (conservative-leaning). For that very reason, Mr. Obama has generally avoided this most watched cable network like the plague. For context, Mr. Obama has not been interviewed by that outfit since the beginning of 2014 by “Fox News” prime time host Bill O'Reilly. Even that was done begrudgingly: by tradition, the network broadcasting the Super Bowl always gets the game day presidential interview. So, why this anomalous pivot? Why did he condescend to a rare interview with “Fox News Sunday?”

To get his message across stentorian: the fix is officially in for the Democratic front-runner. At least as far as Mr. Obama is concerned, that is.

Today, he's apologizing for Hillary: “She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy, he said adding, “What I also know is that there’s classified and then there’s classified. That doublespeak sounds eerily like that of a former blue dress intern-chasing president—Hillary's lothario hubby—who said related to his own inappropriate dalliance with Monica Lewinsky: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.” As Mr. Obama's longstanding “magic” pen and phone pattern, law is reduced to silly putty in this president's grip: “There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and then there’s stuff that is being presented to the president, the secretary of state, you may not want going out over the wire.” What masterful equivocation, what utter gobbledygook! That sounds precisely like another disgraced, scandal embroiled U.S. president. Naturally, I refer to Richard “Watergate” Nixon who said in a 1977 interview with David Frost: “Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” How nice for him and Mr. Obama.

So, in the final analysis, we have not the trailblazing MLK healer of a nation (everyone “hoped” in vain for), we have our own 21st century Democratic version of Richard Nixon. Except he uses his ethnicity as a skillfully as magician's sleight of hand to successfully avoid impeachment for his own ultra-Constitutional activities. Ah, the perpetual motion political maneuvering of Mr. Obama. Unbound by the Constitution, truth, the American way—and apparently all points in between. So, for he, our twice elected de facto “emperor,” the point isn't the unambiguous violation of man-made laws (above no one save God Himself), it's the colossal rationalization that Hillary didn't mean to do it. Boy, using that expensive Harvard law degree to catch the bird droppings in his befuddled brain is a real waste. But, who needs it for he who acts as crookedly as Nixon who also “was above the law?”

A republic is based on the respect for law or, as we have witnessed, it quickly disintegrates into chaos (read: Black Lives Matter), tyranny and big-government fascism. Hence, the true and lasting legacy of the Obama years despite his snake oil gamesmanship. Thus, Mr. Obama's nebulous catchphrase the “fundamental transformation of America” is finally laid bare. And dispassionate history will not be so kind and forgiving as today's generation to Mr. Obama. As a case and point, in his 1819 letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” Mr. Jefferson was wary of a rogue judiciary, it would understandably never dawn on him that any duly elected U.S. president (whose primary role in government is to “enforce” the laws as written by Congress) could summary—and perpetually—act unchecked beyond their strictures. Indeed, Mr. Obama's newest “American apology tour for one,” in actuality, only benefits two people. Her 2016 presidential prospects (she's a lock for the nomination) dovetail with his need for a legacy-preserving successor.

So what are a few, covering lies between to “would be” presidents, one completely bereft of the American spirit, and one halfway there who is simply morally bankrupt? Mr. Obama's “second apology tour” will fail as readily as his bended knee first one did with America's geo-political foes in the war torn, terrorist-infested Middle East. Despite Mr. Trump's obvious flaws, America wants a pro-American outsider like Ted Cruz; not Hillary, an ultimate Washington insider with an allergic reaction to truth-telling. And perhaps even “inadvertent” espionage.

Speaking of those newly charged with espionage, there is Lieutenant Commander Edward Lin, a Navy officer (naturalized in 2008, but born in Taiwan) charged with passing U.S. intelligence to his birth country, and perhaps also China. His presumably intentional disregard for law—and the security interests of the American people—is being met with a rather different standard of justice than Mrs. Clinton. Yet, as any lawyer knows, ignorance of law is no defense against it. To make an apt analogy to Leona Helmsley and paying taxes, law for “the president, the [former] secretary of state” is for the rest of us—the “little people”—not those who stoop from their gilded perches to “lead” us.

Despite “Bonnie and Clyde's” gum flapping word parsing, 2,000 of Hillary's server emails are classified, of those 22 contain “top secret” information and therefore cannot be released to the Congressional committee investigating her actions. And given the strong likelihood that nefarious hackers (working within or beyond the purview of hostile, foreign governments) breached Mrs. Clinton non-governmental system, given his and hers matching track records of stonewalling and bold faced lies, how can these careless people be trusted? Per their Constitutional responsibility, Republicans (who formerly impeached Bill Clinton for his lies) should have found the backbone to at least attempt to remove lawless Mr. Obama from office long ago. In any case, today is a new day. In this regard, make no mistake: Mrs. Clinton deserves an “orange is the new black” taxpayer-funded cell rather than her greatly desired return to “queenly” prominence, the White House in 2017.

The result of the November 4th presidential election is a pivotal heartbeat in our country's continued viability as a free and law-based society. As a nation, our selection of the next commander-in-chief will demonstrate definitively whether the American people still value Western standards or a continuation of the ruinous Obama true-life “nanny” state. Put another way, true independence or more empty leftist's lip service to American ideals. With liar Hillary, we will get top-down totalitarianism from Big Sister. On the other hand, it is not too late to opt for a true, Reaganesque conservative like Ted Cruz who will lead us back to the Founding Father's intention of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


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

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Is Trump in race for us or himself?

If Donald Trump wanted soft serve questions teed up constantly by a slavishly adoring MSM he should have run as a Democrat. Then he too would get front-runner Hillary Clinton's inane, choreographed what's-your-favor-color queries such as Monday's “Which of our previous presidents have inspired you most and why? [Moderator: Pick one].” Her smirking response: “Sorry President Obama, sorry Bill —Abraham Lincoln.” Given that she worked under Obama as Secretary of State and is married to Bill, it is doubly ironic that a Democrat known to the public as a habitual liar would chose a Republican known as “Honest Abe.”


But, Mr. Trump didn't. Instead, he is running as a poll-leading Republican. Now he is in a petulant, foot-stamping Obama-like spat with a natural ally, conservative Fox News. The network has made the perfectly reasonable decision to once again include Megyn Kelly as a moderator for Thursday's debate in Iowa. However, in this, irony is not the sole property of Democrats. Today's debate-ducking Donald (in a 2011 conversation with the self-same Megyn Kelly) derided other Republicans as lacking courage for avoiding debates. Mr. Trump has soured on Ms. Kelly and therefore is boycotting the event.

Mr. Trump has appropriated Ronald Reagan's 1980 slogan “Make America Great Again,” but he's not invoking Reagan's selfless team spirit of “win one for the Gipper.” No doubt that Mr. Trump loves America, but like all creatures of ego, he loves himself infinitely more. By not debating in Iowa—evaluating actions, not words—he sends the clear message that the voters' right to vet all the candidates via the political process doesn't really matter. Like Hillary, Mr. Trump is really in the race for the personal win. It's the presidency as a prize.

For more than 7 years America has limped along under a dictatorial and mercurial personality. The last thing America needs in 2017 is another rule-breaking Svengali regardless of the little 'R' by his name or the little 'D' by hers.


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



Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Trump: chauvinist not misogynist

The powers-that-be at Fox News are ratings geniuses and the proof is in the pudding: Twenty-four million people (7.9 million in their prime advertising demographic of 25 to 53); the highest-rated non-sports cable telecast of all time and the most-watched presidential primary debate ever. The contest, moderated by Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace, was lively and exciting, pulling no punches (which is exactly as it should be).  I had expected little more than a vacuous beauty contest, but what was clearly demonstrated was the astonishing breadth and depth of the Republican bench.  Any one of them would make a superior leader to the dead weight we have now or the progressive, Sal Alinsky, big government radicals populating Hillary's inevitable coronation.

I applaud Megyn Kelly for her pointed, prosecutorial questions directed at front-runner and political lightning rod Donald Trump.  When Ms. Kelly said, “Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.  You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals” her assessment was a fair one.  It was also a viewer's bonanza: Mr. Trump should well know anything transmitted in the Twitter universe (or on the internet) is “out there” forever in the public domain.  And when running for U.S. president—a big boy or big girl job if ever there was one—virtually any question under the sun regarding public statements, actions or behavior of a candidate should be fair game.

For all of his vast material resources, Mr. Trump is ego-driven, lacking humility and any semblance of class.  His wealth and social position—which he freely lords over the less successful (a.k.a. everyone else) that he feels attacked by—makes the basis of his chauvinism (or feelings of superiority) economic posturing.  Therefore, while the target of his vitriol can be, and often are, successful women like Megyn Kelly or Rosie O'Donnell, it is not exclusive to that category of person.  He is actually an equally opportunity offender (much in the same crude mold as provocateur and shock-jock Howard Stern) and not a true misogynist in the traditional sense of the word.

Republicans need a bold contender: a non-politically correct truth-teller to reclaim the White House in 2016 that much is obvious.  As past is prologue, in 2012 Mitt Romney lacked a fighter's passion and failed to inspire 3.5 million Republicans to the polls.  However, Mr. Trump is the other extreme, a brawler who likes to fight for its own sake.   I suspect that lack of measured restraint—a plus when intimidating in business, but a deadly character flaw in the finesse of politics—is likely to ultimately be his Achilles heel.  In the long run though it does not matter, in the flameout of “The Donald's” afterglow, attention will fortuitously be cast on the legitimate hopefuls like Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson.

Fox News got the whole enchilada: tough, thought-provoking questions and candid candidate responses, a spirited debate for the record books, high viewership and a likely kingly sum in advertising dollars.  Beyond that and despite ill-founded objections, the event was balanced.  While it is true that some candidates got more attention or face-time than others, no undue favor was evident to any candidate.  Contrast that to the typical fare of the MSM that is hopelessly biased in favor of Democrats (think of the Romney-Obama debate when moderator Candy Crowley interjected her pro-Obama opinion into the proceedings regarding when Benghazi was first labeled a terrorist attack.)  Indeed, Fox News' program is the new gold standard in political debates and should readily be copied by the other networks.

My only disappointment is that Mrs. Clinton (Socialist Bernie Sanders and the motley crew of other nondescript Democrats) was not on that stage to take an even more well-deserved grilling.  Benghazi, Server-gate, Charity-gate, Planned Parenthood, other lies and alibis: my mind boggles at the forever lost possibilities.  Does anyone seriously believe that future MSM moderator-led debates will challenge the Democrats in any meaningful way or ask them anything remotely controversial?

It will be a yawn-fest: a typical liberal press love-in like the soft consequence-free cocoon the coddled Mr. Obama has enjoyed for the last six and a half years.  The American people will learn nothing new and the myths and propaganda of the Democrats will be carefully reaffirmed.  One hopes Mr. Trump will still be around the debate stage to shake things up with Hillary.  I doubt he has the temperament to be president in 2016, but to knock Mrs. Clinton off of her precarious perch is a job he was born to do.

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