Virginia's Fundamental Transformation

Virginia joined the Union in June of 1788. Of the 13 original colonies, Virginia likely had the greatest historical influence on our fledgling democracy. Specifically, four out of the five Founding Fathers who comprised America's first generation of U.S. presidents—Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe—were born there. Is it any wonder why this state's tourism slogan is “Virginia is for Lovers”? Certainly, over the years, what state has been more purely or proudly American?

In this tumultuous age, pro-America means Republicanism. To that end, Virginia had dependably voted that way from 1952 to 2004. The one exception in that longstanding trend is understandable. It was the re-election of the first modern progressive, LBJ, in 1964. Recall, Virginians didn't vote for John Kennedy in 1960. Yet, with the entire nation still emotionally shattered by his assassination, they chose his vice president by a healthy 7.3 percent margin.

In the 2016 presidential election, the reason Virginia has not yet returned to its conservative roots is troubling. In large part, this is due to current Governor Terry McAuliffe, a close Clinton political operative (the chairman of her 2008 presidential campaign, best known for fundraising). Last April, he tried to restore the voting rights of 206,000 convicts. The violent and the non-violent alike. Statistically, 7 of 10 felons identify politically as Democrats. Therefore, it's reasonable to infer that Mr. McAuliffe played politics to aid his pal Hillary's ultimately failed candidacy.

The Court stuck down McAuliffe's blanket executive order, but that judicial rebuff only slowed him down. By piecemeal, he still managed to rubber-stamp 60,000 cons by Election Day. Virginia's House Speaker William J. Howell put the matter succinctly, “I am not surprised by the lengths to which he [McAuliffe] is willing to go to deliver Virginia to Hillary Clinton in November.”

Let's now add to the tally of the jailbird vote. Today's revelation is that thousands of non-citizens lurk on Virginia's voter rolls. A telling example is Loudoun County between 2009 and 2014. Virginia Delegate Robert Marshall (R-Prince William) uncovered 9,000 juror disqualifications due to non-citizenship. This result was culled from the 350,000 residents by comparing voter registration lists and Department of Motor Vehicle driver's license applications. Naturally, this figure is anecdotal, but it strongly suggests that voter fraud is real and ongoing in Democratic strongholds.

Last year, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF)—a conservative group striving to ensure the veracity of Virginia's voter lists—began demanding election officials turn over data on non-citizens, whether they voted or not. As 80 percent of illegal ballots favor the Democrat, Gov. McAuliffe's resistance to disclose this information is not hard to glean.

By hook or by crook, it appears, Hillary Clinton won Virginia 5.4 percent or 212,300 votes. What's unknown is how many of those votes were gained by the “alternative” methods described above. As Virginia's state motto is Sic semper tyrannis—meaning “Thus always to tyrants”—its governor is supposed to champion the people's will not actively subvert it.

Unfortunately, this systemic problem is not isolated. Look to Chicago's well-established pattern of dead people voting. Not to be undone is most populous California. Per a 2015 California Political Review poll, 13 percent of illegal aliens admit they vote. Indeed, the highly prestigious Pew Center indicates voter fraud is rampant. All told, perhaps millions of illegal votes: enough to throw the results of any election. In February, White House advisor Stephen Miller unequivocally stated this clear and present danger to the sanctity of our republic: “It is a fact and you will not deny it, that there are massive numbers of non-citizens in this country who are registered to vote.”

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

Spinning Trump Conspiracy Theories

“Let me be very clear: We do not have evidence of fraud. We do not have smoking guns.” – Green Party rainmaker Jill Stein, who received a whopping 7.33 million windfall after Election Day

For contrast, Jill Stein raised 3.5 million for her unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign. That's less then half of what she received to challenge the voting totals in three states (pivotal to the election itself, but not to her prospects). She finished dead last of four, garnering zero electoral votes and only 1% of the popular vote or 1,316,040. Therefore, Ms. Stein can't win. As there's no apparent problem with the presidential election, why should a minor candidate with virtually no standing contest the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (where Trump's actually up 131 votes)? Likewise, why should Democratic mouthpieces in the press accuse Russian hackers of nebulous “interference”?

Both developments are narratives designed to promote the fiction that Donald Trump's election is somehow “illegitimate”. (Think of “Dubya” of Bush/Gore 2000.) Jill Stein—same as Bernie Sanders during the primary season—is a political straw man for Hillary Clinton. Like socialist Sanders, will newly flush shill Stein buy beachfront property with the leftover recount money?

Put nothing past progressives who call themselves “Democrats.” In truth, they are big government fascists. (Historically, the “switch” occurred when LBJ took over, using the country's grief over JFK's assassination to push his own anti-Kennedy agenda.) Further, attempts to undermine the Electoral College—members voting for Trump have reportedly received death threats—are just the latest example of their treasonous anti-Americanism. Leftists don't respect elections or democracy. They are elitist authoritarians who will do anything for their god: preserving political power.

There's nothing to fear from these divisive and diversionary tactics. They're just sour grapes. Liberals' litany of dirty tricks—via the MSM's trumped-up propaganda—will echo to a griping murmur after the inauguration. Moreover, their efforts to malign and marginalize will be self-defeating. After all, given their repeatedly false election forecasts, who are they but out of touch naysayers unworthy of attention or trust? Even The Washington Post admitted:

“Trump was right all along, and we, the political class, were flat-out wrong. Trump effectively channeled anger and anxiety into a movement.”

Innuendo spread by dishonest journalists (read: Democratic partisans) is the only problem here. Their influence—like their unsubstantiated claims—will fade like shadow: as immaterial as the outlandish stories they peddle.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

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

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

Progressive Policies Are Making America Black and Blue

“You know what encourages this [Milwaukee riots]? The growth of the welfare state. These are underclass behaviors. Seventy percent of the kids born in Milwaukee are born without an engaged father in their life. So I look at the progressive policies that have marginalized black dads. They push them to the side and say ‘you’re not needed.’ Uncle Sam is going to be the dad, he’s going to provide for the kids, he’s going to feed the kids. Uncle Sam has been a horrible father. Uncle Sam does not love these kids. He might keep a little food in their mouths and that is about it. But we all know the importance of an intact family, what it can do to shape the behavior of kids.” – Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke

Sheriff Clarke, who is African-American, is speaking directly to the abject failure of Lyndon Baines Johnson's wasted 22 trillion on the “War on Poverty.” Of its damaging consequences, he adds:

“These progressive policies have hit the black community like a nuclear blast and until we reverse this government dependency, that’s what creates all of this [rioting] and it encourages it by the way, along with some questionable lifestyle choices.”

50 years on, LBJ's ironically named Great Society policies have destroyed the basis of the nation—the family unit—especially in minority communities. By insidious progressive design, a father in the home virtually disqualifies a mother from collecting government assistance. In this way, federal programs promoted to “help” actually poison society’s lifeblood—the heterosexual, two parent household—by encouraging men to abandon their children. In actuality, these “helpful” measures have subsidized and spawned whole generations of illegitimate children in broken, impoverished single-parent homes with little or no male influence.

Since the onset of these Democratic policies in the mid-1960s, illegitimacy nationwide stood at 7.7 percent; for Afro-Americans 25%. Today, by comparison, out-of-wedlock births for blacks are over 72 percent; Hispanics over 50 percent and whites (from 3 percent in 1960) to 36 percent at present. So, in essence, the State via broken homes and a failed, progressive public school system “raise” children, badly. Given the subsistence living—and the lack of moral guidance—is it any wonder that many fall through the cracks into wrongdoing and the criminal justice system? Thus the liberal snare of a 'school-to-prison pipeline' in which anyone else (read: whitey) is blamed, and individual responsibility for poor choices is never acknowledged. This is precisely why Sheriff Clarke advocates soul-searching reflection:

“Until the black community does a self-evaluation and until they begin to self-criticize about some of the lifestyle choices they are making, this [bad] stuff is going to continue to fester.”

From decades of despair comes this generation of acting out disaffected youths with no stake in the American Dream. So, this faceless, lawless mob populates today's Black Lives Matter movement. For them, everything is “burn, baby, burn”: in Ferguson, MO; Baltimore, MD and most recently in Milwaukee, WI.  For example, one will not find them assisting residents in catastrophically flooded Baton Rogue.  An outspoken voice speaking Mr. Clarke's unvarnished truth is Charlene Realegeno-Molina who said:

“What is BLM doing for Louisiana? Y'all are good at getting together to protest, well why haven't y'all gotten together to help out? I guess BLM only when convenient.”

Despite their Orwellian name, immoral Black Lives Matter doesn't care about life (of any shade, black or blue). America remains a vulcanized melting pot, where cultural differences in modern times have been respected under the color-blind righteousness of law. American society either rises on the basis of MLK's advocacy of individual character, or falls under the jackbooted heel of anarchist, mob violence.

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

Poverty, a Mental Illness?

“You have people who are... whose poverty is such that it creates a mental illness and it's just not being addressed” (in Washington, D.C.) – Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy on WMAL's Mornings on the Mall (June 27, 2016)

Progressives masquerading as journalists these days have go-to narratives to explain away criminality. First, they irrationally (and relentlessly) blame the inanimate object—the gun—not its user. Of this, Courtland Milloy's “To black kids living amid violence, it matters little who fires a gun” (July 13, 2016) is typical. Actually, he's completely wrong. There is a world of difference between appropriately armed white hat elements (the police, legal gun owners, the military) of our society versus chaos-causing wrongdoers.

As an example, last June four ski mask-wearing young men robbed eight retirees at the Hillcrest Recreational Center tennis courts of money, credit cards and jewelry. It was broad daylight, multiple guns were used, and three of the four were teens of similar ages as the victims' grandchildren. Hypothetically, if the elders had been legally armed this assault might have been prevented (or evened the odds.) After all, criminals (as Democratic politicians) sensibly fear an armed population. Realistically, as police can't be everywhere, this dynamic actively discourages crime and protects innocents (no matter their skin color).

Mr. Milloy aptly observes, “That's [the robbery] not just surreal. It's appalling.” Indeed, where are the fathers of these lost boys to teach them safe and proper conduct? (Put simply, right from wrong.) Recall that Democratic welfare programs have provided (for more than half a century) an economic incentive to single mother households. Hence, generations of fatherless boys running wild in minority communities. (Who else but they engage in all too common D.C. neighborhood shootouts? Does Mr. Milloy believe this dangerous activity is being perpetrated by law-abiding citizens or thrill-seeking cops?) Make no mistake, LBJ's progressive policies have destroyed the black nuclear family unit—and with it virtually any chance of upward (capitalistic) economic mobility.

Now, spinning himself silly, this Washington Post scribbler comes full circle with his laughable claim that poverty causes mental illness. (A whole new category for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)!) Interestingly, mental defect is the exact excuse this fop used to rationalize the barbaric actions of Omar Mateen (the ISIS-inspired Orlando mass murder of 49). What if some in the crowd at Pulse had legal guns strapped to their hips? Innocent lives would have very likely been spared. Guns in responsible hands—for the preservation of life—is the reason for the Second Amendment. That's not something dishonest men of Mr. Milloy's ilk will ever address. It's easier to make a cushy living promoting fictions in weekly columns populated by bogeymen: American “intolerance,” and gun-totting racists and sickos.

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

Contrast Cincinnati and Baltimore moms

“Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them” - Proverbs 13:24

Monica Crowley knows the family unit is a microcosm of American society. Her Washington Times column “Surprising heroines who wield authority” commemorates Baltimore's Toya Graham's “moma bear” behavior reining in her wrongdoing son. Imagine if she had been that parent at the Cincinnati zoo. Mindful Mother Graham would have kept her kid safe. No dangerous plummet into the deadly clutches of a gorilla for him.

Let's compare the MSM's biased portrayal of these two mothers. “Zoo” mom's obvious neglect is lamely excused as an innocent, “human” mistake. Yet, Ms. Graham's public swats were demonized as wrongful shaming and child abuse. Rationally, who is the “better” mother here?

All children need a loving family, necessities like a home, and a fully belly. Beyond that, every child needs to learn the boundaries of appropriate and safe behavior. In eras long past, the most terrifying statement made to any errant youth was “wait 'til your father gets home!” That was before LBJ's Great Society. His “welfare” programs continue to reward single motherhood, and the resulting generations out of wedlock births. Now, absentee fathers are often the rule rather than the exception. Therefore, “lost boys” run rampant in rioting cities like Baltimore. Such a chaotic environment is what drew Ms. Graham's boy into the fray.

For an average teen, urban centers like Chicago (with its yearly record-breaking homicides) seem about as safe as that gorilla's lair. Is it any wonder that America in 2016 resembles a real-life “Lord of the Flies?”

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

Democrats Foul Meaning, Foment Rage

“[R]evolutions broke out in city after city... caused still new extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration on the methods of seizing power and by unheard-of atrocities in revenge. To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings.” - Thucydides, Greek historian (c. 460 – c. 400 BC)

Today's “Democrats” are both lip service experts, and linguistic contortionists. Ironically, despite the donkey mascot, they don't believe in democracy or the pioneering American spirit. That unfortunately ended with JFK's New Frontier optimism, and the subsequent tragedy of his and brother Bobby's assassinations. Recall that Kennedy's Camelot was quickly appropriated and replaced by something unrecognizable, Mr. Johnson's “Great Society.” Mind you, LBJ also still conveniently called himself a “Democrat,” but he was the first modern-day progressive, and his hard leftist policies were a radical departure from Mr. Kennedy's.

What did LBJ do? As any good fascist, he cleverly exploited the memory of his murdered predecessor into a governing mandate for his own, rather than Mr. Kennedy's, policies. After all, how could the American people have realized then the radical differences? (They don't even realize them now!) LBJ promised superficial hope and continuation; a calm voice in calamitous times. Reeling from existential grief, the voters did what they thought to be a reasonable thing: they elected Mr. Kennedy's V. P. Specifically, in 1964, LBJ garnered 61% of the vote: the widest popular margin in American history.

On the level of policy what did LBJ do? For starters, he nearly doubled JFK's government spending to $42 billion, and added 13% to the national debt. (These figures are quaint compared to Mr. Obama's 9 trillion of 19 in total, and counting.) Similarly, Mr. Obama has also expanded government with, for example, his takeover of 1/6 of the economy soon to be known as the Obamacare debacle. Likewise, LBJ had his failed War on Poverty. Related to the latter, what is clear in hindsight 50 years later? Per the 2013 U.S. Census Bureau 14.5 percent of Americans are poor, basically unchanged since 1967. In the interim, 22 trillion has been squandered, and generations of the nuclear family in the black community have been economically and socially decimated. This phenomenon is known as the Democrat's poverty plantation.

Fast forward to today to see the stark parallels between both men. Ironically, under America's first black president, the black community has suffered the most of any segment of our society. Look to the unprecedented, black-on-black murder rate of Mr. Obama's community-organized Chicago. Another telling sign, the black teen unemployment rate hit a staggering 39.3 percent in July 2012. Likewise, in a report for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, economist Dean Baker writes, “The drop in labor force participation was sharpest for African Americans, who saw a decline of 0.3 percentage points to 60.2 percent, the lowest rate since December of 1977.” To this end, Obamacare's restrictive employer mandates have contributed mightily to generally declining hiring practices. Equally astonishing is the fact that better than 90% of black voters choose Mr. Obama despite their unmistakably diminished prospects.

In any case, as with LBJ—and the fresh-faced Mr. Obama—with Kennedy nostalgia, the electorate saw what it wanted to see: a fun house mirror for its own hopes and dreams. In this regard, lacking the specifics of a track record was only a boon to BHO. He was a virtual unknown, totally untested, a political neophyte. He was also a polished, empty suit that symbolized what black people aspired to be. Likewise to white voters, Mr. Obama appeared to be the manifestation and realization of MLK's “Dream.” Once again, understandably, the trusting American public pulled the lever. A mistake made twice to our collective detriment. What America wanted another unifier, ideally perhaps JFK and MLK rolled into one. What we got was the opposite: another big government ideologue, a Johnson style bait-and-switch.

By the totality of his political philosophy, JFK would likely be a left of center mainstream Republican in today's world. He was pro-military, supported economy-stimulating tax cuts, was against deficit spending and was rabidly anti-Communist—and specifically, anti-Castro. In what universe could one imagine JFK going on a bended knee “apology tour” to America's geo-political foes? (To that end, he would have rightfully fired Hillary for her embarrassingly inept, Russian “reset button” stunt). Furthermore, what's the probability, Mr. Kennedy would ever vacation in Cuba or embrace authoritarian Castro in warm friendship? How about that U.S. military Mr. Obama has gutted? Or those Obama hell-freezing-over-first tax cuts? Our current president calls himself a “Democrat,” but he also claims a Christian faith for what's that worth. But, what of an apples to apples comparison of Mr. Obama to true Democrat Mr. Kennedy, or Ben Carson as a typical Christian? What is then seen in the former is a pretender who doesn't know the meaning of these concepts beyond lip service to them.

Obama, Clinton and Sanders are all ruling class elitists, happy to play obscuring word game patty-cake with the MSM. Notice the nebulous and fluid labels they use to define themselves:

“OK, well what’s the difference between a socialist and a Democrat?” Chris Matthews asked again.

“I can tell you what I am, I am a progressive Democrat,” Hillary Clinton responded.

“How is that different than a socialist?” The MSNBC talking head asked a third time.

“I am a progressive Democrat who likes to get things done.”

Well, isn't that a bit like hubby Bill's: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.”? “Democrat-Socialist” indeed! That's about as contrary and nonsensical as Big Brother's title for his Ministry of Peace that, in actuality, makes war. (Incidentally, that's why neither DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz nor front-runner Hillary Clinton can articulate the nonexistent difference). More to the point, when a term like “liberal” loses its sale value (as during the Reagan years) these chameleons—anti-American, big government fascists, one and all—shift to the common usage of a different, positive-sounding buzz word like “progressive.” The fact that this word is very similar to the word “progress” is intentional. Given, as examples, the widespread advancements in medicine and technology who in the 21^st century is not for more of that? The fact that both ideas have nothing whatsoever to do with each other is the point. Language becomes imprecise and overtly hazy. Therefore, a progressive is a good association code word to confuse—and ultimately dupe–uniformed voters. (Millennials, this means you!) Likewise, was Mr. Obama's vacuous hope and change slogan. Or Mr. Obama's ominous fundamental transformation of America. Sound good surface words that have brought wheels-falling-off ruin to America.

Think of a curse word for a donkey and that's the only aspect that has remaining relevance to these would-be “Democrats.” Their ilk only believe in one thing: perpetual top-down rule of an ever-expanding debt-ridden government they control. It's Uncle Sam reconstituted as nanny state wet-nurse. Recall, that economics is freedom. As is peaceful self-expression, and individual choice-making. In the final analysis, are Americans more free or less so after Mr. Obama's almost eight years in office? For a strong indication, the able-bodied 93 million unemployed can check their bank account balances, the rest can check their part-time paycheck stubs.

In no way do progressives/socialists resemble Democrat's roots: “go your own way” Classic Jeffersonian Liberalism. They are, in reality, their opposite number. Specifically, today's “Democrats” are that in name only. Mr. Obama has enjoyed and exploited an unquestioning quasi-religious fanaticism by the propagandist MSM, and his fellow political travelers in government. The state is their God and political power (via faceless, unaccountable bureaucratic government), their catnip. Make no mistake, they are against all traditional American ideals: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (via self-determination).

These folks use soft, meaningless euphemisms like “climate change,” and political correctness, as political smoke—sleights of hand—to distract from the abject failures of their policies. Hence, “leadership from behind,” and America's economics, military strength and political power in absolute contraction. Specifically, a corrupt IRS that continues to target conservative groups is just the tip of the ice burg. Politicians like Mr. Obama lie about Obamacare, and globally about his failed record as president. His would-be successor Hillary Clinton lies about her roles in Benghazi, Server-gate and Charity-gate. Added mightily by a sycophantic, water-carrying MSM, they know: say the lie loud enough and long enough and the sludge filters down as “truth” to the voters. Words mean what they say they mean. And, in this chaotic background, Black Lives Matter anarchists openly proclaim disorder and “Pigs in a blanket. Fry ’em like bacon.” Overseas radical Islam similarly chants “Death to America.” Lefties habitually destroy and loot. Contrarily, conservatives and the Tea Party preserve, and protest peacefully. They don't target cops for assassination or burn down American cities like Ferguson and Baltimore. They also don't vote for responsibility-phobic, two-faced politicians to whom truth is a foreign concept. Want more of the faceless, lawless mob mentality we have now? Ignore my honest, unvarnished words. Keep voting for Hillary's caliber of person who promises a dystopian Obama third term.

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

Obama's Flint Water Lip Service

After years of the American people (and progressive cronies) drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, it seems only fitting that our modern-day Marie Antoinette president should have to drink from Flint's formerly leaded water supply. (Did the royal taster on Mr. Obama's staff make sure it was filtered before it graced his majesty's lips?) Apparently so, because Mr. Obama gulped it down like the pricey Cristal I imagine is always on tap at the White House when his buddy Jay-Z visits with Beyonce (still undoubtedly wearing her Super Bowl 50 “Black Panther” outfit.) In fact, since Mr. Obama seems to like Flint's water so much perhaps he will authorize his own personal Keystone pipeline to the executive residence in case Jay-Z wants a mixer instead of his own brand, golden-bottled Armand de Brignac champagne.

This careless and coddled snake oil salesman—who habitually (golfs, parties, vacations) with millionaires and billionaires at taxpayer expense—is now pushing water: his 21 century version to impoverished blacks as their slave forebearers were once promised 40 acres and a mule: “I’ve got your back,” Obama laughably claimed, “I will not rest and I’m going to make sure that the leaders at every level of government don’t rest until every drop of water that flows to your homes is safe to drink and safe to cook with and safe to bathe in.” Seriously? When has Mr. Obama ever taken on fellow Democrats for anything? The answer is never.

His better than seven year litany of hollow words are always designed to obscure the repeated fact of incompetence and scandal—of his party and/or his own administration. In this case, Democrats running virtually every level of the city and state of Michigan were responsible for this money-saving scheme. Likewise, the failed oversight by Mr. Obama's EPA, the bureaucratic negligence related to its cover-up. Naturally, the MSM (and Flint residents) singled out the one Republican, Gov. Rick Snyder, for blame. Contrast that to Johnny-come-lately Obama's rock star reception: his do-nothing face time was only met with universal, sycophantic praise. (Exactly when will America finally wake up to Mr. Obama's skin-deep “down with the struggle” rhetoric and empty symbolism? My prediction is also never.)

In actuality, Mr. Obama does little more than loaf around. He, self-described in Politico with “Hawaii laziness,” is finally going to step take charge after almost two full presidential terms? Seriously, what hubris to continue to believe that more of this metaphorical shoe shining will fool all of the people, all of the time. Let me be clear: Mr. Obama isn't interested in the plight of fellow human beings (read: “No Trayvon outcry for Tayshawn”) or environmental safety.

Recall, it's election time for Democrats. After almost eight years that has specifically ruined the prospects of black folks (along with the country), this is Mr. Obama's hat in hand effort to, once again, fleece votes. Indeed, Mr. Obama excels at the superficiality of political theater. He likes the pomp and circumstance of the presidency—the high on the hog living—the shallow surfaces of being an empty suit with a teleprompter. He's just not interested in tough calls, real leadership (think Syrian red lines) or advocating for American interests. Yet, same as fundraising, trolling for votes with a winsome smile and a little water gurgling photo-op for cameras (read: appear to be “doing something”) is right in his wheelhouse. After all, a brief stopover in Flint is a tiny effort to shore up the black vote for November's likely highly contested presidential election. That's what this is really about: a legacy-preserving third term (read: “Obama's 'Hillary' offensive”).

It is not hyperbole that JFK was America's last true Democrat as president. Progressives of today have co-opted the “brand” and actually oppose what Mr. Kennedy stood for. Why draw the line specifically after him? His successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, reportedly said: “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” (Allegedly, this was confided to two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding Mr. Johnson's underlying intentions for his “Great Society” programs.) In this regard, 2014 marked the 50^th anniversary of Johnson's War on Poverty in which 22 trillion has been spent without any appreciable improvement to the poverty rate: per the 2013 U.S. Census Bureau 14.5 percent of Americans are poor—the same as in 1967—three years after Johnson pushed through his socialistic programs.

How was this achieved? All fascists use tragedy to compel change both desirous to them and for them. In LBJ's case, he exploited the Kennedy assassination to ensure widespread government dependence (read: the “carrot”) and its inevitable political endgame: the future election of “Democrats.” Correspondingly, Mr. Obama's “corrosive attitude that exists in our politics” is entirely a product of his and Mrs. Clinton's Sal Alinsky style polarization and class warfare (read: the “stick”).  Either method is designed to gin up minority votes for progressives—even though their policies are detrimental to their duped supporters! Therefore, make no mistake: that's the only reason Flint “counts” to politicians of their ilk—as election day propaganda.

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