Puppet Hillary's Blame Game

During the 3^rd presidential debate Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton laughably claimed that self-made billionaire, Donald Trump—a political outsider—was a puppet rather than herself:

“He'd [Vladimir Putin] rather have a puppet as president of the United States.”

“No puppet, no puppet… You're the puppet,” was Mr. Trump's honest reply.

Excuse me, but which scandal embroiled candidate made a dirty U.S. uranium deal with Russia? Which same one blatantly broke American law and fostered potential espionage? As with everything two-faced Hillary says the truth opposes her own words and deeds. Via Charity-gate, Mrs. Clinton did the former; with Server-gate she did the latter. Thus, at the debate she falsely accused Trump of her own crimes. This behavior is classical psychological projection: her own deep-seeded guilt blamed on her innocent political opponent.

Beyond a worthless apology, Hillary's blame game never includes herself. Mr. Trump's call to Russia to release her illegally destroyed emails (if they have them) isn't espionage. He has nothing to do with what was left unprotected or has likely been stolen. First, wasn't it Hillary who intentionally had unauthorized, private servers set up in the first place as Secretary of State? Second, wasn't it Mrs. Clinton responsibility to follow the law forbidding such extraneous storage of classified information? Third, since she knowingly ignored the rules, doesn't she own the consequences of hackers and potentially “interfering” foreign governments in next month's election?

Hillary has aided Russia, the foreign government she now publicly demonizes. In reality if anyone is a hypothetical puppet of Putin's, it's Hillary Clinton not Donald Trump. Specifically, her State Department approved the Uranium One deal which insanely ceded Russia control of 20% of American produced uranium for a fat donation to her pay for play sham of a charity, the Clinton Foundation. (That's the highly prized “yellow cake” used in nuclear weapons.) What's to stop the Kremlin from sharing the extra supply with their Middle East allies, the nuclear ambitious Iranian Imams? You know, the same bearded fellows who finessed a toothless, Obama-approved nuclear deal that virtually guarantees them the bomb within the next decade? The answer to all of the above is nothing at all.

Moreover, if the Soviets do have her destroyed emails, Mr. Putin has a treasure trove of top secret material with which to blackmail the normally paranoid and self-obsessed Hillary. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton would waste critical years in office (vital to the continued solvency of America) looking only to save her own skin. Indeed, the next president must contend with the escalating, unsustainable 19.7T debt. (That sounds like a wheelhouse challenge to a businessman, and job creator, like Donald Trump.)

Yet, Hillary's not up to that, or anything constructive. Crooked Hillary will be embroiled in ever worsening scandals, and future Nixon style cover-ups. Just like her impeached hubby Bill, she'll remain in an endless cycle of political damage control. Recall, her already well-established track record of incompetence and lawlessness. While the country seizes in a hellish Clinton Administration death spiral, how would this divisive rabble-rouser lead—except disastrously—over a social and economic cliff?

It doesn't take a dummy to know who's better for America's future. If ventriloquists were Wall Street bankers, speechifying “Hillary six figures” would be their open borders, amnesty-promising marionette. Brassy Donald Trump should not be confused with any of that. Unlike the shifty one percenters who finance Mrs. Clinton's corrupt candidacy, Donald Trump's a captain of industry who can't be bought. He already has all of the fame, wealth and power anyone could want. America needs his tell-it-like-it-is 'can-do' optimism—not an elitist figurehead for foreign and domestic special interest groups, and corporate masters.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

FBI's Comey: A Weasel Among Rats

“You can call us wrong, but don't call us weasels. We are not weasels.” – FBI Director James Comey at a congressional hearing on September 28, 2016

Sigmund Freud would have a field day with Mr. Comey's psyche. Dr. Freud would say he protests too much. Why does the FBI Director compare himself—and the now perhaps forever tarnished organization he heads—to a pack of weasels? Guilty subconsciousness perhaps, Herr Doctor?

Recall, the FBI's motto is Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity. Once important American ideals, today reduced to a bumper sticker slogan. Consider the bureau's former principled reputation of incorruptibility: of holding the powerful to account without fear or favor. Men like Eliot “untouchable” Ness who risked life and limb to combat criminally rather than condone it as James Comey clearly has. How else does one explain his actions of last January, of laying out an unambiguous case of multifaceted Clintonian law breaking, only to ultimately sit on his hands and close the investigations?

To add insult to injury, Mr. Comey foolishly took the political heat for his public pronouncements. Yet, the fix was in before that. Specifically, when spouse Bill Clinton had an “unplanned” chinwag with Attorney General Lynch. Both in different private planes which by “sheer coincidence” crossed paths on the same tarmac in Phoenix. So the nation's top prosecutor meeting privately with the spouse (an ex-president) whose wife is the prime subject of a then looming criminal indictment isn't a colossal conflict of interest? Moreover, is it any surprise that just days after that infamous meeting AG Lynch announced that Hillary would face no criminal charges?

So, one supposes during their 20 to 25 minute exchange, Mrs. Lynch and Mr. Clinton only chitchatted about the grand kids as was claimed? Seriously? That's the same malarkey as Mrs. Clinton's yoga routines and Chelsea's wedding plans that she claimed populated her private servers. Those unsecured, illegal devices likely hacked by bad actors in which Mr. Comey stated 110 emails were classified—and 48,000 (read: 33,000 originally reported and an additional 15,000 recently uncovered) were destroyed.

By ignoring the law—and the evidence—Mr. Comey wrongly recommended non-prosecution. He laughable claimed he didn't want to interfere in the upcoming election, but he has done precisely that—and not on the side of the angels. How is any presidential candidate known by reputation to be a habitual liar—an immoral and greedy person mired in 40 years of infamy—good for the country? If the email scandal wasn't malfeasance enough, there is the Clinton Foundation “charity”: a pay-for-play scheme involving high-level political favors in exchange a personal Clinton slush fund (while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State). The 238 million the Clintons have “earned” after being “dead broke” 15 years ago doesn't even factor in the 2 billion dollar foundation they control. By his own Freudian omission, Mr. Comey's a weasel, but the crooked Clintons are far worse: unapologetic rats who make Richard “Watergate” Nixon look, by comparison, like a church mouse.

Experience repeatedly demonstrates that honesty and the 'for sale' Clintons have never coincided. They should be on the verge of the big house, not the White House. What on earth is going on here? How can the superficial irrelevancy of identity politics—this time in the trivial form of an empty skirt by a corrupt wearer—obscure this obvious truth? One wonders, is this propagandist Germany of 1933 or freedom-loving America of 2016? How can such an ignoble character enjoy such mindless support—and have a 50/50 shot at becoming the next U.S. president?

In any case, Mr. Nixon was drummed out of the nation's highest office for his law breaking. He certain didn't go in the door dogged by a well-established track record of villainy as Hillary Clinton hopes to. That, too, is a vital distinction. Yet, the Mrs. Pig Pen of American politics has only one unpredictable barrier to overcome if she can: outsider Donald Trump.

In the final analysis, political power without a guiding morality—and/or respect for law—is inherently corrupt. This dynamic encapsulates the disastrous Obama years (soon mercifully to be in the rear view mirror), James Comey's “weaselly” words of last week, and the titanic mistake of electing another corrupt Clinton to the Oval Office in November.

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

Trump's Revolution: 2016 – 1984 = 1776

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next POTUS: a Rapist's Laughing Lawyer?

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups [read: Black Lives Matter], parties [read: Democrats], nations and epochs [the Obama years], it is the rule.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

Clearly Mr. Nietzsche never met corrupt American politicians (and specifically today's progressives).

In 1975, current Democratic front-runner, then Hillary Rodham, was already a demonstratively corrupt 27-year old lawyer. What was this purported “great champion” of women's rights doing then? She was successfully defending Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year old sexual predator accused of raping a 12-year old girl. What did she do shortly after that? This lucky lady married a fellow cad, her “Prince Charming” Bill. She also became a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigations—a post she was later fired from for unethical practices like lying! (Indeed, today, with a well established reputation as a habitual fibber, does this longstanding pattern of immoral conduct surprise anyone?) However, back then her misbehavior was obviously disconcerting to chief counsel Jerry Zeifman, Hillary's supervisor. Of his reason for her termination (and his further rare refusal to write a recommendation letter), he said:

“Because she was a liar,” Mr. Zeifman said in a March of 2008 interview. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution [by redrafting rules related to the president's right to counsel], the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

In hindsight, it appears that Hillary has always viewed “the rules” as something that only apply to the “little people”—everyone else—but never herself. Decades later, this dynamic is plainly apparent in light of her own rogue actions and Nixonian style wrongdoing: the Server-gate scandal (in which a private server was set up and used to restrict and control the flow of government information—and state secrets—in clear violation of federal law).

For context and comparison, it was, in part, the Watergate audio tapes which compelled Richard Nixon resignation in 1974. In 2016, will the same be true of Hillary (assuming she gets that far)? I coyly refer Hillary's taped 1980 interview with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed in which she repeatedly cackles like a magpie at the lenient sentence given the man she defended of the rape of a minor. Will Mrs. Clinton continue to get a complete pass for this shockingly brazen and pathologically unfeeling 1980 voice recording? Or will this supremely arrogant figure at the nexus of federal investigations related to Server-gate, Charity-gate and Benghazi finally meet her well deserved Nixonian fate? Certainly, one wonders what it will take for the American electorate to finally wake up to the clear and present danger of this insider creature of Washington; a “for sale” amoral power broker who fully expects a queenly return to the White House in 2017?

This 40 year travesty adds to the stench of multiple his-and-hers scandals which have dogged the Clintons from seemingly the inception of their political lives—so many scandals who can keep track of them all? Ultimately, however, the kick in the head is not what the Clintons repeatedly get away with, it's why any sane person would support crooked Hillary's presidential aspirations.

Speaking of which, the first person who should get his head professionally examined forthwith is Washington Post “fact checker” Glenn Kessler. His dubious relationship with truth is as tenuous as his colleague's, fellow propagandist Hillary-defender Ruth Marcus. Precisely as she, Mr. Kessler shamelessly manipulates facts—and misconstrues history—as overt political cover for Mrs. Clinton's gleefully inappropriate reaction to her previously mentioned 1975 slick lawyering. To this Orwellian “fact checker,” the victim in this tale isn't the defenseless 12-year old child, it's Hillary (taken to task by the National Republican Senatorial Committee who accurately produced a political ad on this subject last month.) Moreover, all the important details are spun to be misleading. For example, Mr. Kessler implies that defendant Taylor was entitled to “replace his male court-appointed lawyer with a female attorney.” He wasn't: public defenders are the luck of the draw (usually determined by caseload). Therefore, any change is at the discretion of the individual judge. Second, while a judge or a prosecutor can recommend a given attorney, neither could have compelled an “unwilling” Hillary to accept a client truly abhorrent to her. Notice Mr. Kessler's intentionally misleading summary of the situation: “In other words, Clinton was a court-appointed attorney, given the case despite personal objections.” In the same vein, earlier in the piece, he scribbles, “The judge went through the list of a half-dozen women practicing law in the county and picked Clinton.” All of this verbiage wrongly implies arm-twisting where there is none.

Upon close examination of the actual facts, Mr. Kessler's fictional interpretation is at odds with Mrs. Clinton's own recollection: “The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton in the interview. “Would I do it as a favor for him?” By definition, a favor is a voluntary kindness, not something one “must” do. Why then this propagandist spin of events? To promote a false narrative that Hillary wanted no part of this infamous case. Follow this sycophant's slippery logic: as an “unwilling” party, she's not responsible for the domino effect of its consequences. Mr. Kessler's fallacious underlying theme is Hillary Clinton as “victim” of Republicans now, and the legal system then, as a young attorney.

In any case, the long-nosed Mr. Kessler is more than worthy of his own four Pinocchio scale—and then some. After all, if what this intrepid columnist claims is true why would Hillary call this tragic circumstance (by any rational measure) “fascinating?” In truth, the voice on that audio tape indicates the kind of person who likely enjoys pulling the wings off of helplessly beautiful things, like butterflies. Or perhaps someone who would not give a second thought to exploit a little girl's trauma for another's legal benefit. Worse, Hillary's tone is secretive and almost conspiratorial: the naughty whisper of something wrongly done, and jubilantly gotten away with.

What Mr. Kessler clearly ignores is that Mrs. Clinton relished in the challenge of getting her client exonerated, and was giddy about the questionable nature of some of the details:

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she deadpans before a breezy laugh.

Moreover, this “feminist icon” peels with laughter throughout her disclosure that the crime lab accidentally destroyed DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime. Even more despicably, this hero of the left re-victimized the young girl through the legal process by attacking her credibility via an affidavit she wrote which stated:

“[T]he complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.”

Even if true—which is highly doubtful—a 12-year old cannot legally give consent for sexual activity with a 41-year old adult. Therefore, the child's alleged “fantasizes” at that time are irrelevant. More sleazy Clintonian style evasion (“It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is”) to cast doubt on the veracity of an innocent by a person who has grave issues with truthfulness herself—to this very day.

Given all the mishaps, which were many—like the mishandling of the bloody underwear—Slick Willie's wife pulled a real fast one. She finagled a plea deal that reduced the charges from first-degree rape to unlawfully fondling of a minor younger than 14. That's not sexual assault—that's inappropriate touching. In other words, the result of the trial was nothing more than a legal slap on the wrist:

Roy Reed: “How did it turn out? What...”

Hillary Clinton: “Oh, he plea bargained! Got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail about two months.”

Considering the source, unsurprisingly, that last bit isn't quite true either. Per The Washington Free Beacon: “Taylor was sentenced to one year in jail, with two months off for time served. He had been facing 30 years to life in prison for first-degree rape.” Yet, in the final analysis, so distasteful was her dishonorable accomplishment, she crowed proudly about it (above) to the press five years later!

By the victim's own admission, Mrs. Clinton put “me through hell.” More honest words of warning are rarely spoken. Is this really the caliber of person this country wants as the next U.S. president?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Obama's “Hillary” Offensive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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