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

Angry voters' choice: new face or Clinton devil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romney's lesson lost on Hillary (re. Joseph Curl, February 1, 2015)

I congratulate Joseph Curl on his brilliant Political Theater column "The lesson for Hillary in Mitt's decision."  His comparison of real life political figures to the fictitious title character of classic American cinema, Citizen Kane--a seriously flawed man of not only of extreme hubris and material wealth but also a certain myopic self-obsession and empathetic emotional bankruptcy--is telling.  Whether or not these seemingly universal impulses of political leaders stem from some deep-seated psychological need for public adoration is interesting.  However, I have no doubt that this selfsame desire has its foundation in the ego's need to control others.  As another astute Washington Times columnist Monica Crawley recently opined, Ms. Clinton, the likely Democratic contender for president, would "walk over her grandmother" to succeed Mr. Obama.  In the case of the Clintons, their compulsive self-serving power-seeking rises to the level of an art form; a specific parallel between them and Citizen Kane.  Also, like the adulterous Citizen Kane whose political ambitions were ultimately thwarted by scandal, Ms. Clinton will have many strikes against her like age (she will be 69 in 2016), a paper thin resume of any actual accomplishments and the looming political baggage of Benghazi.  Unlike Mr. Romney who has the class to step aside so that the Republicans can nominate the most viable candidate, nothing will likely dissuade Ms. Clinton.  Republican detractors will be smeared as misogynists; an absurd fiction dutifully disseminated by a sycophantic liberal mass media that will cover for her at every turn.  As an example, Benghazi will be portrayed as "old news" and a non-issue.  Ironically, Citizen Kane, a newspaper publisher, could not muzzle the press that publically exposed his peccadilloes.  Ms. Clinton will have no such problem.  Like Romney, she should step aside for the good of the country: if the last six years has proven anything it is that America does not need another community-organizing Saul Alinsky liberal in the White House and the resulting continuation of cultural and geopolitical chaos.

Notes:

Re. paper thin resume: As Senator, Hillary had only a total of twenty bills passed. Of those, fifteen were purely symbolic in nature. (Dick Morris: Hillary's 'Paltry' Senate Record)

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

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

Why Hillary can and will run (How Washington Times columnist Wesley Pruden has it wrong)

It's a rare occurrence for Wesley Pruden to read the tea leaves so wrongly, but in this case his wishful thinking is tantamount to hysterical blindness.  It is a pop culture axiom succinctly expressed by the Oracle character in the Matrix movie: 'What do powerful men [or women] want?'  The answer: 'more power.'  In the battle of dueling Washington Times columnists the women have it when Monica Crowley correctly points out in her brilliant "Hillary and Obama" piece of Thursday, January 15 that Mrs. Clinton would "walk over her grandmother" to succeed Mr. Obama as president.  In the case of the Clintons, their obsessive self-serving power-seeking rises to the level of an art form.  I have no doubt in their private moments to this day that the Clintons—who are legendary for holding grudges—still grouse about the fresh-faced political upstart that was the Barack Obama phenomenon of 2008 that stole "her" prize.  Unlucky for them, Mr. Obama was an attractive, articulate blank slate that the average person could, and did, literally tie his hopes to, and a better narrative: the first Afro-American president.  That trumps the first woman president narrative by a mile, and besides Hillary has enough political baggage to make Samsonite jealous.  In any case, thanks to Bubba's actions of a few years ago I knew the fix was in—that Mrs. Clinton was positioning herself for a 2016 run—back in 2012.  Indeed, given their longstanding political grudge why would Bill stump for the very person that prevented his spouse's ascension to the White House during the 2012 Democratic convention?  The answer lies, I suspect, in a political calculation; something at which the Clintons excel.  If Romney ran successfully against Obama's weak record and won, the likelihood of Republican control of the executive branch for eight years would likely end Hillary's window of opportunity.  (She will be 73 in 2020.)  Better to use Bill's "good-ole-boy" persona and honey-tongued charm to woo the voters and shore up Obama who would be out in four years.  Mark my words, Mr. Pruden: Hillary can and will run.  Her playbook will alternately play the gender card or the victim card of long-suffering wife as it suits her.  It will be a one-note Virginia Slims political campaign of "we've come a long way, baby" and phrases like "breaking the glass ceiling" will be used.  Republican detractors will be smeared as misogynists; an absurd fiction dutifully disseminated by a sycophantic liberal mass media.  Democrats know: say the lie loud enough, and loud enough, at it filters down as truth to the low-information voter.  The fact that Ms. Clinton public persona is shrew-like or that she lacks Bubba's political gifts or is a polarizing political force á la Obama is irrelevant when the press will cover for her at every turn.  As an example, Benghazi will be portrayed by Mrs. Clinton simply as "old news" and a non-issue; more road kill in the rearview mirror of the relentless Clinton political machine.  A multi-millionaire using phrases like "dead broke" may be an inartful lie, but Mrs. Clinton is exactly right when she states that it will "make no difference" as most Democrats exist in a consequence free zone of an adoring, biased press.

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/15/wesley-pruden-why-hillary-clinton-wont-run-for-pre/

Beware Democratic leaders' moral relativism (Monica Crowley, Washington Times, January 14, 2015)

Like a prized Picasso, I'd like to frame Monica Crowley's "Obama, Hillary and the Dr. Phil foreign policy" commentary and display it prominently for posterity.  Her analysis is that insightful.  It is like she gave the two of them political couple's therapy; I doubt Dr. Phil could do so well.  For example, Ms. Crowley rightly pointed out Mr. Obama's longstanding behavioral pattern--from Cuba, to the Middle East to China and beyond--it seems our president has never met a totalitarian Leftist dictator he didn't bow to (think of his global apology tour early on in his administration) and deliver flexibility to (by turning a blind eye to the Iranian nuclear program and Russian aggression in Ukraine).  Similarly, Hillary's foreign policy blundering during her lackluster turn as secretary of state did nothing more than sow the seeds that have emboldened America's enemies around the world.  In Mr. Obama's case, history has borne out the critical flaw of inexperience as well as the abject failure of anti-American sentiment and anti-capitalistic policies based upon a one-size-fits-all mentality (think Obamacare) of government intrusion and control.  His and hers foreign policy are also a matching set indicating apologist pandering to geopolitical foes, change for short term personal political gain and the hopeful naïveté to see the burning world not as it is, but how one wants it to be.  Although Mrs. Clinton is technically more of a known quantity than Mr. Obama was when he assumed the presidency, her resume is equally skin deep: first lady is not an official job description and her track record as a carpet-bagging, do-nothing senator from New York does not bode well for her prospects to successfully lead the country.  After a tumultuous eight years, the last thing America needs is more weak-kneed moral relativism by a president wrongly focused upon capitulation to the enemy rather than understanding that the primary responsibility of the job is looking out for our interests; and protecting, preserving and defending the Constitution.

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/monica-crowley-obama-hillary-clinton-too-sympathet/?page=all