Presidential Voting: A Fate Worse Than Death?

Almost 6 months out, in the most polarizing and unconventional (read: Trump's Revolution) contest in modern times, both major party nominees are widely disliked by the electorate. In another bizarre twist, Americans are voicing their unvarnished displeasure with our broken political process in a new way: through their obituaries. Indeed, who would not prefer a heavenly “check out” rather than vote for a corrupt, treasonous “devil” like Hillary Clinton? Well, that part—at least—is understandable!

As a case and point is 68-year-old Mary Anne Noland. Dying in hospice care, this clearly spunky lady had had enough. Not of a deadly illness, but of Washington politicians. And in the Obama years of overspending, habitually lying Democrats—and do-nothing, gutless Republicans—who blames her?

One rapidly approaching death tends to speak truth. She told her husband the only bright spot would be not having to vote for anyone “in this crummy election.” Thus was born her attention-grabbing obit: “Faced with the prospect of voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, [Mrs. Noland] of Richmond chose, instead, to pass into the eternal love of God....” Well, onto eternity. You go, girl!

This unusual trend of using obituaries as a campaign mechanism has increased from 5 during Bush-Kerry (in '03-'04) to 119 with present-day Trump-Clinton. Don't like the candidates? Skip the absentee ballot and drop dead—literally!

While I champion Mrs. Noland's right to express herself, that view is overly cynical. Even before impending departure to the pearly gates, there's no excuse in a democracy not to vote. That better choice is clear: plain-speaking, pro-American Donald Trump. While imperfect, he's a vast improvement over scandal-laden Hillary. She—an angel to no one—never politically says die.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Trump's Revolution: 2016 – 1984 = 1776

“The 2016 election cycle is all about Americans rebelling against those who lied to them and who are exploiting the system. This is Donald Trump’s America. This year is about removing those who caused the problem and starting anew. That is why policy details matter less than the willingness to topple the current establishment... It [is] fight first, sort out [policy details] later.” - The Washington Times's Scot Faulkner

Is Donald Trump a 21^st century re-Founding Father of a modern American Revolution? If so, his much maligned temperament—by “friend” Paul Ryan and foe Hillary Clinton alike—reminds one distinctly of Patrick Henry who famously said: “Give me liberty or give me death.” Indeed, in his unconventional candidacy, Mr. Trump is rightfully channeling the discontent of marginalized true-blue Americans (in the vast geographical spaces between “important” coastal urban centers) who don't like faceless mobs waving Mexican flags while burning American ones. Perhaps Mr. Trump should revive the Colonial Gasden flag of the coiled snake on a yellow background proclaiming “Don't tread on me.” These same disregarded voters have fueled Mr. Trump to the Republican nomination—and likely in the future, to the presidency itself.

The galvanized electorate clearly does not want more of the same: the false choice of a polished establishment candidate (with only the distinction of a little “D” or a little “R” by the name), then more business-as-usual. In the last two election cycles, the voters have handed Republicans both houses of Congress: golden opportunities completely squandered. Have they controlled the purse strings? Strike one: Mr. Ryan's minions approved 2 trillion more in deficit spending. Did they repeal Obamacare as promised? That's strike two. More at issue, did they even attempt to rein in a lawless president (whose many scandals, more lies and ultra-constitutional acts make Nixon's wrongdoing look like a child's naughtiness?) That's strike three: game over.

While the know-it-all jet-setters of Hollywood lecture the rest of us on our carbon footprints and “intolerance,” their elitist fellows in New York banking interests have done very well with both Bush and Obama bailouts (funded, naturally, by the forced generosity of the American taxpayer). Indeed, the only thing booming in Mr. Obama's lifeless economy is Wall Street. Therefore, why would any of these cosmopolitan ubanites—or the pampered beltway bandits of Washington D.C.—want an unpredictable outsider beyond their control? That's Mr. Ryan's real beef. His ilk—elitist weasels—desperately want to transform Mr. Trump into a statesman clone, another Mitt Romney failure. (Recall, Mr. Romney—who was smeared in the MSM for giving a guy a noogie in high school—lost his own White House bid precisely because he never would say a contrary word about Mr. Obama). As a result, three million unconvinced Republican voters stayed home. The progressive was reelected; an epic tragedy for the country. One suspects sour grapes (Romney's and the Bush Family's) are the casual factor for the Republican establishment withholding its endorsement. Well, they can keep their highfalutin approval. One suspects populist Mr. Trump doesn't want it, and with the silent majority backing him, it makes no difference.

In this regard, Republican nominee Donald Trump's path to the presidency is as unconventional as his candidacy. While political wonks (not incorrectly) scrutinize electoral maps to see which combination of accrued states lead to the magic 270, the roots of the Trump phenomenon go far deeper than that. It is a natural and necessary tectonic shift upon the political landscape. It will likely realign not only the presidency, but also the other two branches of government. At present, no one of either party is holding anyone accountable for anything. Part of Trump's solution is plainly speaking about the problems that plague our society, which are obvious, and many.

Everyone in this present generation is so conditioned by the importance of not making impolitic statements. Such a trivial concern is equivalent to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that is America: musicians playing soothing melodies while self-centered political powerbrokers drive the country to absolute economic ruin. Of the oft-mentioned criticism that Donald Trump lacks specific plans, Mr. Faulkner insightfully adds a historical context:

“No policy manifesto or legislation existed [in 1775] when those heroic individuals rose up against a collective evil.”

That was red-coated British Imperialism, quaint by today's standards. For us, today's collective evil is a nefarious combination of red and brownshirts: word-burning political correctness leading inexorably to 1984 style thought-crime, and big government expanding fascists who call themselves progressives, socialists or Democrats. That's why these creatures of Washington actively attack the First and Second Amendments—and ignore the strictures of the Constitution itself. A society's leaders who do not respect law, quash verbalized dissent (under the jackboot of Obama's Orwellian “equality and fairness”) and actively seek to disarm a population ensure one totalitarian voice, theirs. That unchecked voice says anything, and lies with abandon. (Hence the Obama years, also defined by societal chaos and economic downturn.) Progressives don't care about the train wreck of 19 trillion dollar debt. Or 93 million unemployed Americans. Let these uncounted millions ignored even by labor statistics fend for themselves among what's left of overregulated industries and outsourced jobs. While they live in their palatial estates, there are always scraps from the collective table, the public dole or bankruptcy for the rest of us.

Likewise is their blasé attitude about our porous borders. Rest assured, their loved ones are perfectly secure in stretch limousines, gated compounds, and armed security details. Republicans always need low wage gardeners or servants to keep their water glasses full. Likewise, Democrats need a permanent underclass off-the-books voters to keep themselves in office despite the abject failures of their policies. Therefore, the government these Congressional millionaires willfully mismanage works perfectly well for them. What does that leave for the rest of us, specifically those in sanctuary cities, the Kate Steinles of the world? We get porous borders permitting a human flood of the lawless: the potential criminal and/or terrorist hidden among masses of border jumping squatters. And what of these (11 million or 30?) illegal aliens, apparently unable to survive with all the natural advantages of family connections, a common language and culture, and legal employment in their birth country? It is the re-occupation of America by a silent army of invaders without having to fire a single warring shot. Montezuma's re-browning revenge.

America is indeed poised for a reckoning or a rebirth. If Donald Trump is a 21^st century Patrick Henry who is Hillary Clinton in the Grand Experiment that is America? She, of Server-gate, is a high-tech Benedict Arnold. Yet, her foreign masters are not the British. They are Communists like the Chinese—fiscal contributors to her money-for-influence “charity”—the Clinton Foundation sham. Mr. Trump's first duty to the country will be thwarting her queenly White House coronation. Hopefully, he will also follow though on his plainly spoken words, and send Mrs. Clinton where all traitors belong:

“I will say this. Hillary has to go to jail. She has to go to jail.”

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

'Cross-dressing' Captain America

Published on May 25^th, just in time for Monday's Memorial Day, comic book fans can morn the fundamental transformation of another decades-old symbolic hero in Captain America: Steve Rogers #1. It turns out that even a fictional hero of Americana on paper isn't safe—even when he's a super-soldier patriot wearing a uniform of stars and stripes. In this latest version, Steve Rogers still wears the traditional red, white and blue garb, of course, but he's really an agent of Hydra (an authoritarian terrorist-criminal-paramilitary organization bent on world domination)—and has been since childhood. Of this big reveal Marvel Executive Editor Tom Brevoort stated, “[He's] the real Steve Rogers [and not] some clone, shapeshifting Skrull, Life Model Decoy or a Cap from an alternate universe.” (Well, isn't that reassuring?) So, he didn't fight Nazis in WWII—as the original tale goes—he was one!

Steve Rogers survived many hardships like medical experimentation and an iceberg's suspended animation freeze. Yet, he was no match for an artist's appropriation of his myth—thereby proving the pen really is mightier than the sword. This comic book debacle is an eerie parallel to current political events unfolding in Japan also related to WWII. Specifically, another representative of America, a global apologist “double agent,” is currently cooling his heels in Hiroshima (site of the world's first atomic strike). He also wears the traditional “uniform” of the West—sharp business suits and that ever-present American flag lapel pin—but like Steve Rogers, he's not what he appears to be either. So, if Captain America is really a fascist what does that say about the powers-that-be who have mismanaged the country over the last almost eight years?

Recall that General George Washington was many things including first president and commander-in-chief. Therefore, since the country's inception, the military has been intimately associated with the office. Beyond the fact that candidate Obama ran successfully on an anti-war platform, the reality remains that as president he has kept the United States embroiled in very costly Middle Eastern conflicts exactly as his Republican predecessor did. (Incidentally, he also criticized George W. Bush's deficit spending as unpatriotic, then literally doubled down on the practice by spending twice as much.) If that's not enough insult to injury, Mr. Obama has simultaneously slashed the military. But, the rot—and the dysfunction—is more pervasive than is generally realized: American military culture, itself, is under a constant, multilevel leftist assault.

As demonstrated, this is seen in popular culture via fiction with now anti-hero Steve Rogers. It can similarly be witnessed in real-life Mr. Obama who is pursues a dogged “weakness through capitulation” strategy; the opposite of Ronald Reagan's highly successful “peace through strength.” Yet, the attack isn't only top-down, this corrosion is also in the process of eradicating the roots of the tree. Specifically, it is the misuse of law to undermine the long-established practices of one of America's oldest military colleges, South Carolina's almost 175 year old, The Citadel. Earlier this month, the institution rightfully refused to permit a Muslim student's request to wear a hijab—a headscarf demonstrating her faith—in addition to the school's required uniform. So, what is more important here, seven generations of tradition or the tyranny of one individual's right to self-expression? Well, that girl's parents aren't taking their daughter's rejected request lying down—they are in the process of considering “all legal options.” (Well, bully for them!) Naturally, the propagandist MSM is busy spinning yet another frivolous demand into a political tempest in a teapot. All in the name of “religious freedom and inclusiveness,” of course.

That's quite an interesting liberal perspective. So, under this given circumstance, one girl's right “for comfort” at The Citadel is suddenly an absolute. What happened to that same consideration—the comfort level and rights of biological girls (plural)—that this same crowd expect to share any school facility, locker room, shower area or bathroom with an outwardly presenting transgender male (or any mischievously adventurous teenage boy willing to fake it)? Sounds like a spirited game of South Carolina philosophical “Twister.” Soup to nuts, Orwellian nonsense.

All of these changes—bastardizing Captain America's image, an ideologue president's longstanding hard left polices, and in contrived school-based grievances—are smoke screens for something far more insidious. Specifically, these acidic actions are water droplets slowly, incrementally wearing away the bedrock that is American culture. It is about the creation of artificial crises (or in Mr. Obama's case a world traveling reminder of America's “sins” as with his current Japan visit) in order to justify rabid, homegrown anti-Americanism. Progressives are cowardly parasites. To maintain a stranglehold on political power, they corrupt and exploit every good thing that is America—even going so far as to demonize her most popular box office hero.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Whining Bushes' Sour Grapes

What's in a name, a future president? Well, Hillary Clinton certainly hopes so. Meanwhile, Bush scion Jeb is sidelined, and the whole clan, apparently is licking its wounds. Now, the electorate is sensibly beginning to coalesce behind presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, the Republican Party elites like Paul Ryan not so much. Specifically, also the grudge-holding political dynasty, the Bush Family. Yet, even if that endorsement was on offer (it's not), it is doubtful that Mr. Trump would want that elitist nod. And given the country's hunger for a political outsider, why should he want the stain of that affiliation? Recall, that the last Republican president was named Bush—and his lack of popularity propelled then unknown quantity, Mr. Obama into office.

To this end, a no doubt mouthpiece for the Family, in the form of one of George W. Bush's former chief speechwriters recently wrote: 

“Now loyalty to party is causing many to abandon their ideals. Conservatism is not misogyny. Conservatism is not nativism and protectionism. Conservatism is not religious bigotry and conspiracy theories. Conservatism is not anti-intellectual and anti-science. For the sake of partisanship — for a mess of pottage — some conservatives are surrendering their identity.

As is typical of The Washington Post, even their “conservative” writers get everything backwards, upside down and inside out (if that is possible). After all, what is the basis of the populist movement that is the Trump phenomenon? Is it Pavlovian style fealty to a familiar last name of one family member or another (read: Clinton's wife; Bush's brother and/or son) who has resided in the White House before? (Wasn't the American Revolution fought, in part, against such nepotism, royal or otherwise?) On both sides, these political elites very much want for rank-and-file voters to think so—to mindless pull the lever their way and then get back to their little lives finding work or paying taxes.

If the 2016 presidential contest has demonstrated anything, its that neither the voters nor the likely successful candidate is likely to act in conventional ways. For insight into this anomaly, let's look to the person actual conservatives hope Mr. Trump will emulate: Ronald Reagan. Of his own political evolution, he said: “I didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me.” Well, precisely. Weak-kneed Republicans have spent the disastrous Obama years alternatively cowering in a corner, afraid to be smeared as racists—or going to lunch. Yet, in the last two election cycles, Mr. Obama and fellow Democrats appropriately received electoral shellackings. Since then nothing has changed despite the liberals' loss of both legislative houses. Even under fresh-faced House Speaker Paul “clean slate” Ryan, it's been more business as usual. Specifically, when he rubber stamped 2 trillion more in deficit spending, he showed the American people that Republicans can engage in lip service (to ideals like limited government) as readily as progressives while simultaneously acting indistinguishable from them.

Speaking of which, let us go back further to look at the record of George W. Bush. For starters (though likely well intentioned), he also expanded government by creating a whole new bureaucratic, cabinet-level department with the Office of Homeland Security. By the numbers, when Mr. Bush's term started January 20, 2001, the debt left by Bill Clinton was $5.73 trillion. By the end of the Republican's two terms the debt had almost doubled to $10.63 trillion. How was the money spent? There was the greatest expansion in Medicare in decades. Likewise was his No Child Left Behind program that grew the (worthless) Department of Education. Then there was Bush's $700 billion dollar bailout of financial institutions. Add to the tab wars on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan (including progressive Wilsonian nation-building). Therefore, it is only a question of the extremity of the degree. But, that's a huge technicality. Indeed, Richard Nixon looks like a choir boy when compared to Mr. Obama's lawless, ultra-constitutional wrongdoing. Specifically, this current administration's constant and inept warring, big government expansion (read: Obamacare), stimulus spending and the GM bailout, and the exploding debt (read: Mr. Obama's 9 trillion and counting) makes anything we've had previously look like a cakewalk. Is it any wonder America wants to get off the nauseating Obama-Clinton-Bush merry-go-round?

As in nature, organisms instinctively find a way to survive. Even if they don't thrive, they adapt to changing conditions and new exigencies. Mr. Trump is that unexpected solution. Therefore, he scares the heebie–jeebies out of all entrenched establishment power-brokers. Well, so sad, too bad! Do the voters care about Mr. Trump's bluster or unfiltered speech—or are they sick to death of smarmy politicians bold-faced lies, and anti-First Amendment political correctness? Further, do they care that the coddled ruling class call Trump supporters bigots, misogynists or just plain ignorant? The only stupid vote here is for more of the same: crooked, lying Hillary who promises a dystopian Obama third term.

The present political reality is clear and unequivocal. After a robust contest, Republican voters have overwhelmingly chosen Donald Trump. Therefore, despite private reservations, GOP politicians have a public duty to the country to support the people's will in this matter. Indeed, this never-Trump crowd shows colossal selfishness and arrogance. Even worse, and most tellingly, they demonstrate de facto support another corrupt insider: Hillary. That means these well heeled hypocrites are enablers who want to game a system they can no longer control. And so what if the cost is the very soul of the country itself? For that's what's on the line here. That's also why Mr. Trump's status as an unpredictable, plain-speaking outsider is so essential.

So what if he's not a card-caring conservative? He's also not a standard do-nothing (or do the wrong thing) professional politician either. In the final analysis, if he can drag America back to its Reaganesque roots—a Herculean task—he will have the appreciation of a restored nation. So, let the insulated beltway creatures of Washington whine. From that other shining city on a hill, a smiling down Gipper will no doubt approve. 

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Barack's Shaming, MLK Mirror

Given the ongoing, fawning MSM coverage of our first black U.S. president, to revisit the 'him' of this pair of peas in a political pod now seems inevitable. 'Hers' was an appropriately appalled reaction to a Marie Antoinette-style sense of coddled, arrogant entitlement called Michelle's chastising, honest mirror. Likewise, 'his' will detail her fascist hubby as the antithesis of MLK's dream. MLK would have advocated a positive, unifying figure who, through example, sees beyond superficial differences of color or creed. We got the opposite: a manipulative, divisively petty personage who stirs up current or “past grievances” (reflecting his personal biases) for a divisive political effect beneficial to Mr. Obama and his fellow travelers in the Democratic Party.

An important critique of Obama's classless “character” such as it is: our black president ignores Lincoln, the Great Emancipator's 150^th anniversary rather than appropriating honoring a truly prescient American leader. (That was a president who knew how to use executive orders to good, long term effects.) Contrast an abolitionist decisively ending the horror of slavery with something beyond his wildest imagination: a black president who customary race-baits (same as differences of class, gender, orientation etc.) as political wedges to turn American society against itself. This ideologue's reason? To distract from personal ownership of his abject failures domestically and abroad.

Specifically, Mr. Obama constantly changes the subject from his obtuse ineptness. To that end, he uses the visibility of the presidency to repeatedly elevate and exaggerate the import of minor, otherwise isolated and unfortunate incidences (read: Henry Louis Gates Jr.; Trayvon Martin; Darren Wilson UN speech) into full-blown scandals. Given his well established pattern, he perpetuates artificial crisis to short-circuit debate (read: demonized Republican objections to his “pen and phone” imperialistic change.) Indeed, Mr. Obama wields power to compel progressive change. This is the way of all law-violating fascists. (In retrospect, the “hope,” it turns out, was a pipe-dream; a superficial sound-good 2008 campaign slogan.)

Aided at every turn is the biased MSM, the Democrats' slavish humpbacked creature who minimizes (or completely ignores) the virtual Noah's Ark of unresolved pink elephant issues (illegal aliens; porous U.S. borders; potential terrorists re-settled here as Islamic migrants), and shrieking gorilla situations (read: ISIS; Iranian nuclear deal; 19 trillion debt). Then, there is the third category, those alternate-universe dupes who carry press badges like devotional rosaries who waste breath on the embers of this man's presidency, and his shameful legacy. That's The Washington Post's Petula Dvorak.

Ms. Dvorak wrongly claims that Mr. Obama is the victim (rather than a perpetrator) of hate. Fallout, she assumes, from what is admittedly the most crassly juvenile, small-ball issue, unpredictable presidential race in modern history. Yet, given how these same dynamics have exactly mirrored Mr. Obama's own contentious tenure, one would think he would be quite at ease.

In nature, what else would Mr. Obama be other than a parasitic organism, a bottom-feeder sapping America's strength and poisoning her citizens' good will? Look around at the carnage of a once thriving nation. From E Pluribus Unum—out of many: one—to the divisive Obama Doctrine of rewarding friends (read: cronies of now bankrupt Solyndra) and punishing enemies (read: the American people; Republicans; Israel and the West). What hasn't fallen apart in his almost eight years of honing little more than his golf game? Truthfully, Mr. Obama has damaged our republic at every opportunity—perhaps beyond repair—with his nebulous “fundamental transformation of America.”

The only hate that truly exists is reflected back in Mr. Obama's own gilded presidential mirror. What Ms. Dvorak is completely oblivious to is the simple logic that one does not “fundamentally transform” anything that is truly beloved in the first place. (I challenge Ms. Dvorak to try that tack on her significant other some time—and see where she ends up. I'm betting the dog house, if she is lucky.) Moreover, his hate-filled effort to change America from a capitalistic haven of upper-mobility to a full-on big-government socialistic hell, has been neither gentle or measured. It has been more than seven years of polarizing gale-force winds, boiling over American's “melting pot.” In effect, he has pressure-cooked America's First World golden goose status to a ruined, debt-laden husk.

As America's first rabble-rousing president, Mr. Obama has intentionally exploited our society along its inherent fault lines. Specifically, he used his ethnicity to silence (and unfairly smear) detractors as innately intolerant, rather than respecting their legitimate right in a democracy to object. Case and point: on the campaign trail, he certainly objected to George W. Bush's accumulated debt (4.899T) as irresponsible and unpatriotic. And how Mr. Obama—grand hypocrite that he is—has outdone Mr. Bush on these measures (to a degree the Republican could hardly fathom) is obvious. In any case, what loyal American would not take issue with Mr. Obama's anti-American posturing (read: Castro Cuba trip). His job-killing economics (read: 93 million jobless; 8.63T Obama debt (difference between 10.6 debt at end of Bush II presidency and current escalating figure of 19.23T))? His wealth redistribution via the government's bureaucratic ObamaCare take-over of the one-sixth of the economy (and the world's best medical system)?

Have the well-heeled Obamas forgotten where or how they have lived for the better part of almost two presidential terms? Perhaps the greatest sin of these truly careless people is their complete disregard of the widespread suffering of average citizens during the Obama years. They forgot long ago that they work for us, not the other way around. It is we—not once, but twice—who have placed them in the rarefied air they frivolously waste. They are there by electoral votes, not divine right (much as they pretend otherwise.)

What is truly unseemly here is the lack of compassion, kindness or respect shown by the Obamas for the rest of us. We struggle to pay bills, and worry mightily about an uncertain future—caused, in large measure, by this president. Meanwhile, utterly tone-deaf, Mr. Obama has “transformed” the presidency into “lifestyles of the rich and famous.” His mindless extended vacations of golf games, tangos in far-flung tropical locales, and watching baseball with decades-old American's geo-political foes are a complete embarrassment. The intrepid Ms. Dvorak makes a real funny with: “For someone who has been attacked the way Obama has... who has endured verbal assaults and [unrealized] physical threats to his family President Obama's demeanor has been dignified.” So, one again, a Post columnist discloses that Mr. Obama shares his wife's high class problem: what others say about them. In the final analysis, how dignified is a president who heartlessly abandoned Chicago families to record-setting, senselessly tragic killings of their children at the hands of their peers? Spinning no doubt restlessly in his grave, I wonder what colorful language MLK would have for Mr. Obama's pampered sensibilities!

For her part, Ms. Dvorak does her “journalistic” duty as professional fluffer for Mr. Obama's deservedly tattered reputation. She cites the meaningless measure of a weekly Gallup poll of presidential approval: Obama's 53 percent compared to that of George W. Bush, his predecessor's 32 percent during the same time frame. (A partisan swipe at Republicans for good measure.) Speaking of world leaders, I would dearly like a candid poll of their impressions regarding this current president. Out of Mr. Obama's earshot how friend and foe alike must snicker at this apology-tour adventurer, this emperor with no clothes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize a pervasive level of rightful resentment for this Tiger Woods-style fop literally “playing at being commander-in-chief.” (Incidentally, this precise, unfounded Ronald Reagan smear by liberals fits Mr. Obama to a golf link “tee.”)

Ms. Dvorak's column reads like a '60s-style homage to the period piece “The Help.” A time now long past, when blacks were routinely marginalized and discriminated against solely due to their skin color. Her writing apes this warmed-over, superficial skin-deep claim. Specifically, for her ilk, race is always the causal factor for any negative attention directed at this first black U.S. president. Meanwhile, she completely neglects even the merest mention of Mr. Obama's real-life track record of aforementioned failures: “Obama received triple the number of threats that previous presidents faced... [b]oth the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have seen huge jumps in threats against the president and the formation of hate groups during the past seven years.” The social and economic context—which this piece briefly details—is never even hinted at, stated explicitly or adequately explained.

Undercutting the serious nature of her subject matter, she uses slang unworthy of a precocious middle-schooler—let alone a major newspaper scribe—when she scribbles, “It's impossible to utter a single word about the White House, the first family or the president without a blast from the fire hose of haterade.” (For those of us rare birds who confine ourselves to the use of proper English, the Urban Dictionary defines this absurd term as a figurative drink consumed by those who, in turn, are consumed by the negativity of their subject matter.) Beyond demonstrating that she truly is a bad writer, this half-wit is an insult to even the yellowest journalist. Ms. Dvorak is so out of touch—so hysterically blind as the man she thoughtlessly lionizes—she mistakenly assigns bile appropriately directed at him as a “sign of the times” rather than as a natural consequence of Mr. Obama's own words, deeds and policies.

As spurious proof of “everybody else's hate,” she cites one reader's irate response to Mr. Obama, “Go back to Kenya.” The reader's curious assertion brings up a salient, still unresolved point: Mr. Obama's nebulous background and upbringing. (To make an analogy, Mr. Obama's authentic-or-not released long-form birth certificate continues to be as controversial and uncertain as the “settled” science of “global warming,” now discredited, and re-labeled as vague “climate change.”) Likewise, Mr. Obama's own wife publicly muddied the waters at a Denver luncheon during an August 2008 GLBT speech: “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya... showing folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested, and we did it as a couple.” Would any worldly and educated spouse in a 20 year marriage ever misspeak her husband's birth origin—and not bother to issue a correction? Moreover, would any American generally confuse a home country with somewhere else? No wonder the rumor persists to this day that Mr. Obama is a foreign-born Muslim. After all, that's how he acts, and where his loyalties evidently philosophically lie.

Ms. Dvorak is encroaching dangerously on Courtland Milloy's murky turf as the Post's resident racial-scribbler. Not surprisingly, both of these progressive potted plants masquerading as journalists sing from the identical Democratic-sanctioned sheet music: both summarily condemn Americans as being secretly guilty of “racial contempt” regarding the Obamas. Yet, this is a factual impossibility. After all, by large margins, average Americans voted Mr. Obama into the highest office in the land through two election cycles. If race truly was a negatively pervasive element that could never have happened.

Therefore, the unfounded rumor and intangible innuendo these columnists wrongly engage in is nothing more than propaganda. They blame the “scenery” rather than the “star” of the show. In Ms. Dvorak's case, she compares the current presidential campaign to a primordial swamp (another veiled, unworthy swipe at Republicans). Yet, the real problem remains where it always has been with Mr. Obama—likely the worst U.S. president in recent memory, if ever. Certainly, her unwarranted, sycophantic praise of a black man bereft of MLK's content of character only mirrors a delusional true-believer with sludge stuck between her ears.

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