Virtuous Hands with a Gun

“What actually stops an evil psychopath is what we saw on Sunday—a good guy with a gun.” – Jordan Stein, spokesman, Gun Owners of America

Would the massacre have happened if the congregation of the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas had clung as tightly to guns as their Bibles? On Sunday, in a bizarre echo of Sayfullo Saipov's Halloween rampage in New York, suspect Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, brought death into a house of worship. Like some villain straight out of the slasher flick “Scream,” he was outfitted in black body armor and a skull mask. Within this sacred space, this Grim Reaper killed 26 innocents and wounded 20. Thirty miles east of San Antonio, in the worst mass shooting in Texas history: about 4% of the town's population (reported as 683) were slain.

Since time immemorial, that's what civilized people call acts of evil. Ultimately, Mr. Kelley's true problem was his homicidal impulses—expressed as externalized rage. Therefore, holding responsible the inanimate object, that was his tool of choice, is a simplistic response. So too is blaming the law that criminals habitually disregard as somehow “insufficient”. In that vein is the imperfect background check that inadvertently allowed Mr. Kelley access to the firearm he utilized (read: The Air Force failed to provide the FBI with the shooter's criminal history). And despite this unfortunate bureaucratic blunder, where does individual accountability factor into this latest bloodbath?

In reality, almost anything physically imposing can be used as a weapon. For example, just last week in New York a zealot screaming “Allahu akbar” misappropriated a rental truck killing 8 and injuring 12. Likewise, at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, South Carolina on August 12, a third unhinged miscreant, James Alex Fields Jr., killed local protester Heather Heyer, 32, and injured 19 others with his Dodge Challenger. If guns are truly the systemic “problem” here—as gun control advocates repeatedly parrot—why does Chicago persist as an annual killing field despite the strictest gun laws in the nation? And why aren't these same critics ignoring the unfettered freedom to buy cars, and rent trucks? After all, don't all of the above potentially serve an evildoer's murderous design?

As the 18th century philosophical father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke famously remarked, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” To that end, a good Samaritan interceded on Sunday in Sutherland Springs. That small town hero gaining national attention is Stephen Willeford, 55. Synchonistically, he's a former National Rifle Association instructor who confronted the attacker, wounding him twice (in his Velcro covered side despite protective plating). As light dispels darkness, Mr. Willeford repealed villainy despite his fear, and the inherent danger. As he told local affiliate 40/29 News in Fort Smith-Fayetteville:

“I think my God, my Lord protected me and gave me the skills to do what needed to be done, and I just wish I could have gotten there faster.”

In this regard, mere mortals beg to differ. This faithful defender got to the scene so quickly he arrived barefoot. Alerted by his daughter of the sounds of a firearm discharging, Mr. Willeford removed his own rifle from its safe, loaded a magazine, and ran across the street to the church. Standing behind a pickup truck for cover, he exchanged gunfire with the escaping interloper. He even shot through the open driver's side window of Mr. Kelley's fleeing Ford Expedition SUV. At a stop sign, Mr. Willeford then flagged down a 27-year-old motorist, Johnnie Langendorff, and a high-speed highway chase ensued. En route the younger man called 911. Eventually, their pickup caught up to the gunman's SUV. Apparently, the assailant started driving erratically. He pulled over to the side, seeming to slow down, then accelerated again until he hit a road sign, lost control and flipped his truck which landed in a ditch. Mr. Langendorff pulled over, and ducked down. Meanwhile, his heroic companion exited the vehicle, planting his rifle on top of the pickup's hood. Keeping a look out, Mr. Willeford yelled for his adversary to get out of his truck, but all remained still. When law enforcement arrived on the scene, they confirmed that Devin Kelley had committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

Separated by time, specific circumstances and geography is the fact that guns in legal and responsible hands actually preserve life. This is also true of another hero, New York police officer Ryan Nash, who subdued Islamic terrorist Sayfullo Saipov; and Charlottesville police who subsequently apprehended suspect James Fields. Indeed, the loss of life is a terrible tragedy—particularly in situations initiated by the radicalized. For resolution, what demands society's focus is the discounted evildoer himself, not the distraction of his method. Philosophically to blame a criminal's firearm is equivalent to condemning the car or the truck rather than its driver. It's a false premise that misses the crux of the issue. Such intentional naivety actually endangers the public. These days, in diverse gathering places like First Baptist Church or Sandy Hook Elementary School, what's become more unsafe than a gun-free zone?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

America's “Terrorist” Lottery

On Halloween, Manhattanites were “treated” to actual horror. Only blocks beyond ground zero and the shadow of the World Trade Center, the worst terrorist attack since 9/11 occurred. Weaponizing a Home Depot rental truck, a Muslim immigrant, suspect Sayfullo Saipov, 29, killed eight innocents and badly injured a dozen more. Also at the nexus of the accompanying political firestorm is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). He was instrumental in crafting the diversity visa program that enabled Mr. Saipov to arrive stateside legally in 2010. Furthermore, perhaps foreshadowing the future carnage, this native of Uzbekistan's first name has a close association with the meaning: “sword of Allah”.

In retrospect, is it any surprise that a bad U.S. immigration policy was grossly exploited by an adherent to radical Islam? Defining Sen. Schumer's involvement is Neil Munro of Breitbart:

“The diversity visa program was created in 1990 by then-Rep. Schumer in response to Irish lobbies in his New York district. Twenty-seven years later, it annually awards 50,000 visas by annual lottery to entrants from around the world, ensuring a cascade of subsequent chain-migrants.”

Like a philosophy straight out of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” this is a randomly awarded golden ticket to a foreigner regardless of that person's background. It gifts the holder a green card, and permanent residency in the United States. Plus, lucky's nuclear family—and distant relatives can emigrate too! After all, such good fortune should not divide families. (Incidentally, this is the same narrative echoed by illegal migrants with U.S. anchor babies.) Ah, the destructive domino effect of lax previous administrations on full display!

In the 21^st century, think of the Immigration Act of 1990—signed into law by George H.W. Bush—as America's version of Russian roulette. For, in practice, that's what this law has metastasized into. To his credit, even Mr. Schumer recognized this truth back in 2013. Then, he among a bipartisan Gang of Eight passed an immigration overhaul that would have ended the Diversity Immigrant Visa. Unfortunately, the move failed to advance in the House. Yet, even if the measure had reached President Obama's desk it seems a reasonable certainty that it would not have been signed. Given all of these facts, one is mystified why President Trump has antagonized Mr. Schumer in this instance. After all, wouldn't this latest attack on NYC further incline the minority leader to align himself with Trump's desire for a merit-based replacement?

At present, that's not a question that can be sufficiently answered. However, what can be addressed is how ill-conceived this random green card lottery system is. Per Pew Center, 19 million applicants from around the world have taken a spin on America's wheel of fortune for fiscal year 2017. (Moreover, in the last decade, an astonishing 156 million have similarly rolled the dice.) What's available yearly is 100,000 chances for the U.S. to extend the welcome mat to perfect strangers with no loyalty to, or cultural appreciation of, American values. Of the 50,000 selected, the vetting process is apparently as vigorous as getting hired to work at McDonald's. To qualify, the individual must have a high school diploma, and two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at least two additional years of training or experience. Fill out form I-485, the Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; a brief interview; an official rubber stamp—and you're in like Flynn! For all the sense this makes, the government should have nicknamed this highly valuable commodity the slacker's visa. In that regard, the loved ones of the NYC victims undoubtedly have more colorful descriptors for this now detestable policy.

In any case, as the October 31^st tragedy has clearly demonstrated, radicalized Islamic proponents are hidden among those admitted into the U.S. Since they are invisible, we must consider past experience as a guide. Therefore, a trend articulated by Alex Nowrasteh, of the Cato Institute, comes to bear. In “Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis,” he wrote:

“Foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015.”

Likewise, one must consider the larger, visible group that contains them. Recall that Muslims comprise 1% of the total U.S. population (per the Pew Center's 2015 figures). Based upon a total population then of 322 million people, that's still 3.2 million people. Also consider that 1 million people have gained residency in the U.S. annually since 1990 via chain migration of extended relatives (see: NumbersUSA.com). So, what's likely to happen to the homeland's Muslim population in the future? This is Pew's prediction:

“Indeed, even before 2040, Muslims are projected to become the second-largest religious group in the U.S., after Christians. By 2050, the American Muslim population is projected to reach 8.1 million people, or 2.1% of the total population.”

Naturally, one does not intend to impugn an entire community for a few bad apples. Yet, a legitimate concern remains: a small number of the radicalized have caused mass-casualty truck attacks in London; Berlin; Barcelona, Spain, and Nice, France. Clearly, a first step is to finally abolish, and replace, the deeply flawed 1990 immigration law forthwith. The unacknowledged monkey wrench in this debacle is the wrongheaded application of “high-admission regions” and “low-admission regions”. If the invited do not provide, for example, a needed skill set what's the point of further diversification of legal migrants? Just for the heck of it? By definition, a large immigration population inherently diversifies an established culture. In fact, by a wide margin, America already accepts more immigrants than any nation on earth. Thus, diversity has already been automatically achieved without all of the unnecessary—and risky—human geo-political gerrymandering!

A vital second step is to linguistically distinguish diversity from multiculturalism. Liberals intentionally use the words interchangeably to muddy their meanings. In truth, they actually represent opposing concepts. Specifically, diversity means the general acceptance of differences—whether they be physical, psychological or behavioral. That's the warm embrace of America's vulcanizing “melting pot”. Hence, the U.S. motto of unity: e pluribus unum, Latin for “out of many, one.” Contrarily, multiculturalism is the rejection of Americanism. Like identity politics, it promotes the idea that assimilation to our constitutional ideals—freedoms enjoyed by all—is somehow repressive. Furthermore, it's the nonsensical idea that society at large should shift itself to pacify even one objector. Witness its (justified) effect on the shadowy and corrupt industry that is Hollywood. A volcanic grievance culture is currently shaking the dream factory's power structures apart. Hasn't America's dysfunctional immigration system, and radical Islamic terrorism done even greater damage? The confluence of both instantly invokes Shirley Jackson's short story “The Lottery.” In it, lots are drawn and the unfortunate winner is stoned to death. Those encountering the “sword of Allah” in NYC on Halloween met an equivalent malevolence.  

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Crying Over “Shattered” Hillary

“You know as well as I do, that plenty of people playing this game, they don't think that way. They're willing to sell their souls, crawl through sewers, lie to people, divide them, play on their worst fears for nothing! Just for the prize [to become a U.S. president].” – Jack Stanton (a.k.a. “Bill Clinton”), played by John Travolta, from “Primary Colors” (1998)

In light of the other option, the clear-minded are thrilled that Donald Trump is president. Deliciously, he finds himself ensconced in Oval Office while Hillary trolled the woods of Chappaqua, New York; a relegated political has-been too briefly put out to pasture. (Ah, if only she had stayed in the thicket. Without a hint of the grace demonstrated by defeated French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, Mrs. Clinton has re-emerged to absurdly join the “Trump resistance”. With the power of the office behind him, it's utter lunacy for her to assume she'll be more successful now.) In hindsight, she ran on sheer superficiality: name recognition, her gender and an unstated message of entitlement. Given her (and Obama's) non-existent record of accomplishments, she could not run on issues or vision as Mr. Trump successfully did. So, she took Jack Stanton's low road described above, political polarization:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” – Hillary Clinton at a New York City fundraiser on September 9, 2016

Her hollow narrative and divisive strategy were not nearly enough. The Electoral College results made this plain. Speaking of being grossly generalistic, the Clintons have always been about themselves. That's precisely the unintended message Hillary's campaign loudly proclaimed. Didn't her ego-centered, gender-specific slogan “I'm with her” say everything? Contrast that with President Trump's Reaganesque “Make America Great Again”.

Beyond his obvious love of country—as transparent as Hillary's is absent—one logically suspects Mr. Trump initially ran for the presidency on a lark. He's pleasantly surprised (as his supporters) to find himself in the job: “Hey, I'm president! Can you believe it?” While he naturally wanted the gig, unlike Hillary, he didn't need it. Herein is another important difference between the two.

A new political tell-all, “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign” by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, is making the rounds. Like Marley's ghost to Richard Cohen's Scrooge, this exposé has compelled this Washington Post columnist to write his own shallow Hillary postmortem called “The reason Clinton lost.” As shell-shocked as her most ardent supporters, this partisan begrudgingly acknowledges that it was supposed to be “her turn”. He can articulate no other rationale for her candidacy: “As a mental exercise, I tried to come up with a message myself: “Hillary Clinton—because she’s not Trump” is the best I could do. As it turned out, she could do no better.” That's because there was nothing else. In the final analysis, Mrs. Clinton ran for the highest office in the land simply because she felt she deserved it.

The skin-deep analysis of this award-winning investigative reporter—and four-time Pulitzer Prize finalist for commentary—is little more than pro-Clinton gossamer and anti-Trump spit. What of Cohen's sanitized description of Hillary as “a cold and somewhat distant Midwestern archetype” and “a politician with no gift for politics”? For real-life context, would anyone hire an auto mechanic with no innate ability to fix cars?

Along these lines, he insults the reputation of Walter Mondale by comparing her to him. Yet, Hillary has none of the former vice president's decency or warmth. Moreover, she lacks his governmental competence (read: As Secretary of State, Hillary's department lost 6 billion dollars) or the gravitas of an elder statesman (read: Hillary's “Russian reset”: her humiliating plastic red button stunt). In fact, their only relevant connection is the shared stain of two Democrats who failed to attain the White House.

Inconvenient truths regarding Hillary are barely mentioned by Cohen, or ignored entirely by him. For example, he minimizes “Server-gate”—a Nixonian scandal on steroids—as “a historically trivial matter”. So, Mrs. Clinton's illegal use of private email servers—that likely put American operative lives at risk by exposing national security secrets to foreign powers and/or bad actors—is no big deal? Beyond that, what of her ever-changing inconsistencies that amounted to boldfaced lies to the American people? Furthermore, what of “Charity-gate,” the influence-peddling of the now defunct Clinton Foundation? Kool-Aid drinker Cohen doesn't even bring it up.

He bases his missive on a few personal moments spent with her, finding Hillary “fresh, irreverent and funny”. Well, can't anyone be snowed with a false impression during a brief interaction? Behind the scenes, via day-to-day experience, it's well known that potty-mouthed Hillary's personality is cruel: a shrew in the extreme. Hers is the Secret Service's punishment detail: the worst assignment to be had. But when one wears Mr. Cohen's rose colored glasses one sees what he wants to, right?

On that basis, Columnist Cohen contends, “But [Hillary] Clinton’s great failing, the book—not to mention the election itself—makes clear, was her inability to fashion a message.” What a coy, cloying criticism for such an obviously fundamentally flawed candidate! Likewise, his juvenile conclusion that “She lost, and a fool won” is equally petulant and misleading. Candidate Trump—a first-timer in the political sphere—was just “lucky” to best 16 traditional Republican candidates, plus Hillary in the general election? By any fair measure that's more than the randomness that luck implies, that's genius.

Salt of the earth swing state voters in the economically depressed Rust Belt (that she basically ignored during her campaign) got unlikable Hillary's “coal miner” message all right: they didn't matter to her, so she didn't matter to them. Thus, in their wisdom, they made the better choice: Donald Trump. Richard Cohen should respect that despite his raw disdain for this president. It turns out this political dinosaur doesn't get “the message”. Neither does Hillary, an amoral person unworthy of sycophant Cohen's empty rationalizations.

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

The West’s Confederacy of Dunces

“They created a system where it was virtually impossible to ever catch anyone cheating, removed all verification processes, automatically registered all drivers license holders—whether they like it or not, and then launched that program immediately after granting every one of the untold millions of illegal aliens in California a driver's license.” – Tim Donnelly, former California State Assemblyman

Per the highly respected and nonpartisan Pew Center, 11.1 (or is it 30?) million illegal aliens live within America's porous borders. Of this human tsunami, one in five illegal aliens reside in two metropolitan areas, either Los Angeles or New York City. Per their latest data, that translates into 2.2 million people.

Using simple math, we'll assume half of them reside in LA. To flush out the political landscape there, per a 2015 California Political Review poll, 13% admit to illegal voting. Also shown in that study is that 80 percent—or four of five illegal voters—cast ballots for Democrats. (As California is home to one-third of all welfare recipients, Democrats pushing cradle-to-grave dependence is unfortunately a natural fit.) Therefore, just in California, that means 114,400 fraudulent votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. (Hypothetically, double that result to include NYC.) Still, how ever it was achieved, with 60 percent of the popular vote, it's no surprise Crooked Hillary won there!

With 55 electoral votes—of the vital 270 needed—California remains a major player in choosing a new U.S. president. Is the Golden State—America's largest by population—actually a tarnished and seedy microcosm of voting corruption? Specifically, I refer to population dense, Democrat-controlled urban centers that delivered Hillary victories. For example, the regular cycle of dead people voting in Chicago readily comes to mind. Of this wrongdoing, expert J. Christian Adams—a former election attorney for the Department of Justice—told Fox and Friends last October:

“Dead people are voting and it’s something this [Obama's] administration does not want to do anything about. They must like it. They must like who they are voting for… Now we have four million, four million Steve, ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls according to the Pew Charitable Trust.”

This is a fundamental threat to the very foundation of our democracy. An ever-present iceberg to the Titanic that is the good ship America. Let's be clear: election fraud is election stealing. Yet, on both sides of the aisle, obtuse establishment politicians blithely pretend this systemic problem is nonexistent. No wonder this finite reality so difficult to gauge! Finding accurate information is as tedious as counting grains of sand on one of California's beaches.

To go down Alice's rabbit hole further, obstructionist Democrats now call for “Calexit” due to the election of Donald Trump. Apparently, one in three Californians polled support the split. (Are they same one-third receiving those welfare payments?) In any case, California is making belligerent noises like South Carolina of 1860 (when it seceded from the Union over the election of Abraham Lincoln). In that rebellious spirit, officials grumble about not remitting legally obligated tax dollars to the federal government. Likewise, they insanely contemplate mutating sanctuary cities into one lawless state. Does Jerry Brown (a.k.a. “Governor Moonbeam”) envision Westworld debauchery as a real-life template?

Still, the most immediate “California problem” actually emanates from Washington State's Ninth Circuit of Appeals. Helmed by three loony lefties, their decisions are overturned 80 percent of the time. Essentially, this activist triumvirate ruled that foreigners' travel plans should not be inconvenienced by Trump's executive order (read: a 90-day moratorium regarding seven terrorist-infested countries with no trustworthy government to vouch for them). It doesn't matters to them that the President's action is expressly supported by federal law, 1952's Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212(f), which specifies:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Thus, this kangaroo court radically overstepped its bounds; thumbing its nose at all concerned.

Three Ninth Circuit judges means three major legal errors. As described above, they encroached on the co-equal executive branch of government (read: Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution). Second, they granted non-citizens—with no constitutional right to live here—legal standing where none exists. Then, they compounded that mistake by gifting foreigners preferential treatment over the legitimate safety concerns of American citizens.

The President's duty is preserve our country's sovereignty. That means enforcing law to ensure the American people are protected. Therefore, in practice, Trump determines the conditions by which non-citizens can enter, leave or otherwise reside within our borders. After all, lives are at stake!

Progressive ideologues—whether politicians or judges—should not be playing chicken with our collective fate. Specifically, Trump's constitutional authority should not be usurped by this rogues' gallery extending from Washington's Ninth Circuit to California's state house. In this situation, the former pretends to be “beyond reproach.” Yet, unlike King Solomon, they cut the baby in half with their mangled misinterpretation of the equal protection clause. The fact remains: citizens' rights can't be countermanded by non-citizens' needs. (Likewise, one state's rambunctious desire for independence cannot prevail over the national interest in unity.) Therefore, Washington State's reckless ban block—like California's antebellum fantasy—demonstrate how badly out of step they are with the rest of us.

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

Gender Agenda Masks Failed Leadership

“The Democrats have created gender confusion... [In New York City], you can be fined for not calling people 'ze' or 'hir' if that's the pronoun they demand to use... It's speech crimes and thought crimes... This is... Mr. Orwell (knock, knock), Mr. Orwell, you're breakfast is ready.” - WMAL's conservative encyclopedia Chris Plante

“And it's all to keep you excited, keep you watching, like you watch a... a car wreck or a... wrestling match. That's just what it's like—professional wrestling. It's staged and it's fake and it doesn't mean anything.” Florida governor Fred Picker played by Larry Hagman in “Primary Colors” (1998)

Can all not agree that 2016 is shaping up as the pettiest, most small-ball and juvenile, presidential contest in modern times? Voter's must-see TV, like mindless cotton candy entertainment: sugar, some color and spin with little substance—and no worth. Thankfully, we are beyond the undercard, the freak show phase of Donald Trump's orange spray tan and Marco Rubio's small hands. Now, we're rapidly progressing to the red meat in the contest: Hillary's bold-faced lies and obvious corruption (read: Charity-gate and Server-gate). However, Hillary's “damn emails” is not something socialist Bernie Sanders will ever address. (Rest assured, Mr. Trump will not be so reticent.) Meanwhile, the real shocker here is not the unconventional Republican nomination of Donald Trump, it is the disappointment hoodwinked “feel the Bern” millennial supporters will experience when their aged Bolshevik anti-hero meekly withdraws from the race. Then, two truths will be painfully apparent to them. First, he was just in the race to promote his hard leftist, anti-American agenda. Second, he was only a stooge to make inevitable front-runner Hillary appear to be more mainstream (read: more palatable to the electorate.) Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton has neither her husband's good ol' boy roguish charm nor Mr. Obama's superficial shiny, fresh-faced newness to carry her to victory.

Yet, Mrs. Clinton, same as Mr. Obama, can always depend on the propagandist Fourth Estate. Indeed, facts and/or reality are never an impediment to the habitual Kool-Aid drinking MSM which is always at the ready to spread disjointed political spin. One prime example is the pure fiction of America's economic “recovery” under Mr. Obama. Still, he'll keep claiming illusory successes (read: the bureaucratic waste that is Obamacare; the “deal” soon to make Iran a nuclear state; his worldwide, bowing “apology tour” etc.). For their part, the sycophantic press will dutifully, and unquestioningly, transmit The White House's talking points, as dictated. The actuality that this de facto emperor has no clothes doesn't seem to matter to this small circle fest (read: Obama advisor Ben Rhodes's brother, David is CBS News President) of elitist powers-brokers. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama runs out the clock on his presidential term as a Tiger Woods wannabe. From his caustic fundamental transformation, what remains of our culture is so much the better.

With chaotic cities like Ferguson and Baltimore periodically erupting in mob violence and Black Lives Matter anarchy; with 93 million Americans out of work; with our nation in the mire of 19 trillion dollar debt; and establishment politicians of both parties not heeding the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, our society is literally falling apart by its seams. Why then the progressive myopic obsession with the trivial, the politics of gender and sexuality? Specifically, why the sudden urgency in the Obama years for gay marriage? Or its latest iteration, unisex locker and shower rooms, and gender-neutral bathrooms? Why do those now “in charge” go so far as not only to punish free speech, but also to promote a new set of pronouns that appropriate—and neuter—the English language itself?

This formula of semantic control is quite elegant in its simplicity: those who mold, modify, and impose themselves on the language of others determine the political discourse that shapes the country. In retrospect, word-burning political correctness makes certain communication (and their related thoughts) taboo. As an example, Facebook's ever-expanding list of progressive gender options, now at 71, is a case and point. Keep the oblivious masses distracted from the big picture: lawless, anti-American crazies, at every level of government, running the country literally into the ground. As evidence to any clear-thinking person, their soup to nuts failures at home and abroad. How is this feat accomplished? By the MSM's relentless focus on minutia like gender-bending labels or who uses which bathroom stalls. And worse in New York City, a new set of unnecessary pronouns to decode and master under threat of civil penalty. It's all the metaphorical equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic: America with Big Government, word-obscuring fascists at her helm. Mr. Orwell's dystopian “1984” nightmare realized with entitled Big Sister Hillary waiting impatiently in the wings. Yet, the scramble on the Mr. Orwell's breakfast plate isn't an omelet, it's the heaping mess of America mangled unrecognizable from within.

Trump's tonic is truth-telling. A quality most essential to our 45^th commander-in-chief.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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