June 12: A Love-Hate Date

Almost perfectly bisecting the most popular month for marriages (named after the domestic goddess Juno) is June 12^th. That date—defined by two notable circumstances (and geography)—now has diametrically opposed meanings. Herein, the love-hate contours of today's political divide are clearly illuminated.

In a nod to Juno, let's start with the good. In the commonwealth whose tourism slogan is “Virginia is for Lovers”. In Richmond, a new historical marker denotes a cultural milestone: a “loving” 50^th anniversary. Ironically, this sign stands outside the building that once housed the Virginia Court of Appeals that was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling: Loving v. Virginia, 1967. That decision ended Southern states’ bans on interracial marriage. Synchronistically named, Richard and Mildred Loving were a white man and a black woman. Their successful legal challenge facilitated today's commonplace marital experience. That means 11 million are wed to a person of another race. Per Pew Center statistics, that's 1 in 6, or 17 percent compared to 3 percent in 1967. Thus, how appropriate that for Virginia June 12^th is henceforth known as Loving Day. What could be more life-affirming than that?

By contrast, in Orlando, Florida, June 12^th marks an infamous one year anniversary. How unfortunate that the horror of mass murderer Omar Mateen—who killed 49 (and injured more than 50) innocents at the Pulse gay nightclub—should correspond on the same day. Yet, that it does is instructive. For both events demonstrate the deep-seeded influences that shape our ever-evolving society. Are we to once again embrace harmony: the shared melting pot experience of being Americans? Or do violent leftist protesters, name-calling, baseless Russian conspiracies and “headless” stunts continue to dominate our political discourse? Do we rise to a new day delivered by the 2016 election, or descend further into the polarization that epitomized the last administration?

As Richard and Mildred persisted, so we must embrace our collective goodness—despite these divisive signs of our time. This must happen for the continued well-being of the nation. That means honoring the past, not tearing down old monuments; or otherwise opening old wounds with spurious claims like certain lives matter, and others don't. We would be wise to heed the Lovings's quiet and dignified example over the ratings-garnering, destructive possibility. 

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

Trump's Fix: No Visas, No Travelers

Why bother with the uncertainty of an evenly split Supreme Court, or continue to lock horns with Washington State's activist Ninth Circuit? The implementation of President Trump's 90-day travel moratorium is at his fingertips! Per the Immigration Law Institute, at least five of the seven terrorist-infested countries have already been deemed “uncooperative” by refusing to take back their citizens: criminal aliens ordered deported by the U.S. government. Per the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Section 243(d), the recipe to safeguard American citizens is clear:

“On being notified by the [Secretary of Homeland Security] that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the [Secretary of Homeland Security] asks whether the government will accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country until the [Secretary of Homeland Security] notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.”

Therefore, John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, issues an official notification regarding these troublemaking counties to Rex Tillerson's State Department. He, in turn, immediately halts sending out travel visas. Ipso facto: no visas, no unwelcome overseas visitors. No fuss, no muss: ban achieved.

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

A Bleeding Heart's 'Supreme' Sacrifice

All of me – Why not take all of me

Can't you see I'm no good without you

Take my lips I want to loose them

Take my arms I'll never use them

Your goodbye left me with eyes that cry

How can I go on dear without you...

From the movie theme of “All of Me” (1984)

Given the generally unhinged and hysterical state of today's vanquished progressives, it's singularly appropriate that a dark interpretation of the title song from a 1984 movie would suddenly come to bear. With President Trump's Supreme Court nomination of the eminently qualified Neil Gorsuch, 49, their squirrelly thoughts shift wildly to the future loss of crone Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83. Compare the above stanza with the following disjointed rant exemplified by The Washington Post's Rachel Manteuffel:

“I’ve found myself thinking about you lately, and how things are going with you, and I just wanted you to know that I ... have some tokens of my esteem that you might enjoy. Such as blood. If you have any need for blood, you can have the eight or so units of A-positive that are right here in my body. There’s also a gently used liver in here, lobes of it just lying around if you need them.... Do you like platelets? I have excellent platelets. I have had all my shots. ... My kidneys function well. I have two. Either one is yours for the taking. Both, if need be. … I have scads of nerves that you can have. Just take them. My skin would graft onto you beautifully. Bones, stem cells, a whole eyeball I don’t need, feet of intestines, feet. Just a ridiculous amount of health, way more than should rightly belong to someone with my standing in the world.”

Ms. Manteuffel also specifies her large heart to be trimmed to fit Justice Ginsburg's diminutive size. This frankly gory element brings to mind another 'body parts' film, “The Silence of the Lambs” (1991) (released synchronistically on Valentine's Day). Specifically, how is one not graphically reminded of Jame Gumb's basement lair of kidnapped and skinned women, or Hannibal Lecter, when Manteuffel suggests:

“If you need to keep me on life support in your house, just in case, while you slice off any bits that appeal to you, that is totally fine and my loved ones will understand. … We have discussed it. ”

Ah, what would Dr. Lecter say about that conversation? In any case, notice the conspicuous absence from the rambling list of human anatomy: this scribbler's brain. Is that because Manteuffel knows Ms. Ginsburg has no use for such an inferior organ? Or does this Post employee use her gray matter so infrequently that it never occurs to her to offer it? Indeed, her opinion piece is so bizarre she should be known henceforth as Macabre Manteuffel!

“MM” would greatly benefit from reading “On Death and Dying” (1969) by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Within, the five stages of grief resulting from an unexpected loss (read: the 2016 presidential election) are detailed. Philosophically, Manteuffel is stuck at stage three, known as bargaining. Still, the ultimate goal of any grieving process is acceptance. That means intensive therapy, though not with “Hannibal the Cannibal”. This deluded ideologue will need to keep all of her body parts to get there.

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

Journalist, Not Biased Hack

“Objectivity is dead, and I’m okay with it.” – Lewis Wallace, former “Marketplace” reporter

The above is the title of his essay published on the website, Medium. As this attitude negates Wallace's “impartial” role as a journalist, he was ultimately terminated by his employer.

Recall, the purpose of journalism is to convey current events impartially with facts. Any unbound person—unwilling to exercise fact-based dispassion—can't be a legitimate journalist. Instead, that's a de facto activist: a propagandist with a press pass.

Facts are essential, intractable things. They remain elemental to authentic journalism. Specifically, facts anchor news stories to reality. When correctly utilized, they greatly aid journalistic truth-telling. 'Just the facts, ma'am'—for good reason.

Journalism's traditional tenets don't impede anyone with skill from getting their writerly point across. Wallace finds himself in the unemployment line solely for willfully violating a professional taboo. Demonstrating the rank intolerance he rails against, he writes:

“We need to admit that those who oppose free speech, diversity and kindergarten level fairness are our enemies”.

How is it not fascism to demonize others simply for holding a different political perspective? Is it not hypocritical, and childish, to condemn another in the name of Wallace's militant “fairness”? To paraphrase Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, a bad judge to the law is equivalent to the journalist disregarding objectivity. They are incongruent and cannot coexist in the same sphere.

Without facts, journalism rapidly degrades into valueless, gelatinous goo. Reporting becomes untrustworthy and indistinguishable from fiction. Hence, the Orwellian specter of today's “fake news”. The false is peddled as true: witness the absurd claim of Trump's “threat to invade Mexico”. (He didn't, per CNN he actually offered help.) This Associated Press narrative was mindlessly disseminated far and wide as truth. Is this American journalism or an old fashioned telephone game from Mr. Wallace's kindergarten class?

Beyond the editorial page, neutrality remains a job requirement. Lewis Wallace confused a First Amendment right of self-expression with his professional duty. His employer acted appropriately because he wouldn't (read: another pesky fact for this “victim” to misconstrue and grouse about).

As with everything he advocates, Wallace only has himself to blame. This is the fallout of competing interests—and the healthy expression of a difference of opinion.

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

2016: An Anti-Women Year?

“But scientists? Record-breaking athletes? Leaders? Does. Not. Compute. Still! In 2016. From the lab to the Olympic podium to the Oval Office, America still has a problem with women when they’re good at the things men have long reserved for themselves.” – Petula Dvorak, “feminist” Washington Post columnist

As Crooked Hillary did not win the presidency, scribbler Dvorak has yet another political ax to grind. What else explains her boneheaded assessment that 2016 is somehow globally anti-woman? Like liar Hillary, apparently Ms. Dvorak has an aversion to truth-telling—and modern-day reality. Girl power is everywhere! What of the current resident at 10 Downing Street? British Prime Minister Theresa May doesn't count as a leader? At home, how about Air Force general Lori Robinson: the highest ranking female in U.S. history—and the first women as a combat commander? Further, three women are on the Supreme Court. Isn't it hypocritical for Ms. Dvorak to accuse others of diminishing the contributions of women—when she completely ignores them?

In sport, why has she forgotten tennis pro Serena Williams? This year, Ms. Williams tied Steffi Graf's historic open era record of 22 major championships. Likewise, how about another American phenom, Simone Biles? As the winner of four gold metals, she's considered the “greatest gymnast of all time”. This breakout star of a team of women has established an Olympic legacy. Speaking of the Rio Games, U.S. women were the big winners: receiving 61 metals (to the men's 55), 27 of them golds. In 2016, if these don't count as record-breaking athletes to addled Dvorak, who does?

While it's true that women have not been so publicly acknowledged in scientific circles, even that unfortunate dynamic has been commemorated in today's highly rated movie, “Hidden Figures”. Given Ms. Dvorak's jaded '60s style mind-set, it's no surprise she doesn't pay attention to pro-woman box office trends. What else explains her failure to mention current number one “Rogue One”? That film features a brave, tough and capable female lead, Jyn Erso (played by actress Felicity Jones).

Indeed, 21^st century America is one of the most accepting cultures on earth. Therefore, griping liberals—promoting a false anti-woman narrative—are actually grievance-holding dinosaurs of a bygone era. At present, tolerance is the overwhelming rule rather than the exception. As flawed and out of touch, such MSM misperceivers like Petula Dvorak should be pitied. Rightfully marginalized by current events—and a society that has evolved well beyond her. In truth, the “problem with women” is her own phantom menace. A sour grapes bogeyman of an ideologue's fevered imagination.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Liberal Losers Champion Hypocrisy

“It’s understandable liberals presumed the Rockettes were going to be forced to do something with which they were opposed, because that’s what the liberal establishment [under Obama] has been doing to everyone else.” – Tammy Bruce, author, columnist and radio talk show host

When a handful of Rockettes declined to kick up their heels at Donald Trump's upcoming inauguration—a voluntary gig—liberals wrongly assumed the dancers' employer was “forcing them” to perform against their will. Where was a similar outcry when Christian bakers were compelled by the State to produce cakes for gay weddings? Further, why were libs as silent as church mice when the big government juggernaut that is ObamaCare compelled Catholic nuns to pay for useless birth control? (These Little Sisters of the Poor successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for “protection” from Obama's fascism.) For the last eight years, why has progressive “outrage” been so blatantly selective?

Wasn't the central theme of all civil rights movements—of women, blacks and gays—based upon the intrinsic idea of equal treatment for all? Why is it that today's progressives have inverted this meaning? Why do they seek “special” rights only for their fellow travelers (like one “graceless” Rockette who stated on Instagram that President-elect Trump “stands for everything we're against”)?

Democrats' only true agenda is self-serving power-seeking. Therefore, they distort and exploit a trivial circumstance for their own political gain. What else explains their full-throated lip service to griping, anti-Trump dupes who also constitute their future voting blocs? Ironically, a few Rockettes popping off behind the scenes has inadvertently made center stage leftist hypocrisy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Clarence Thomas: Ignored Conservative Icon

“The persistent efforts to undermine Justice Thomas and his compelling body of jurisprudence, and to ignore the spectacular Horatio Alger [read: rags to riches] story of his life, are part of a deliberate strategy to silence a conservative voice from someone who might serve as a transformative role model in the African-American community in particular, and the American community more broadly. Sad, really, that the taxpayer-financed institutions of our own government would join in such efforts.” – John Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

Disgraced accused serial rapist Bill Cosby is favorably mentioned. So is philandering adulterer, golfer Tiger Woods. One imagines a whole wing of the new Smithsonian African American museum is dedicated to Barack Obama: the worst, most polarizing president ever to hold the office. Why then in our “post-racial” age, is a black Supreme Court Justice—one of the two ever to serve on the nation's highest court—treated like a modern-day Ralph Ellison “Invisible Man”?

Since the Supreme Court's inception on September 26, 1789, a grand total of 112 justices have had the distinct honor to serve. (By comparison, for context, Donald Trump will become America's 45^th U.S. president on January 20, 2017.) To add further insult to injury, the only tangential reference to Justice Thomas is a political smear: a pin-back button reading “I Believe Anita Hill.” (Now ironically a race and gender anti-discrimination professor at Brandeis University, Ms. Hill famously accused the jurist of unsubstantiated sexual harassment at his 1991 Senate confirmation hearing.)

So, between references to Ms. Hill, Mr. Cosby and Mr. Woods, a rogue's gallery of the morally dubious are well-represented. (In fact, at the casual glance this ultramodern structure of sterile glass and oppressively ornate bronze mesh could easily be mistaken for a three tiered prison, an inverse step pyramid or a cubist slave ship.) Opened on the Washington mall on September 24, 2016, this 19^th Smithsonian housing 37,000 objects is a 379,000 square foot eyesore. Within, ample space has been lovingly dedicated to violent quasi-terrorist anarchist organizations like the Black Panthers and Black Lives Matter. Yet, among 12 exhibitions, a person most central to both American history—and specifically the black experience—is wrongly marginalized and negated.

Liberal fascists running a museum cannot render Clarence Thomas invisible. As one of the country's finest legal minds, he's overcome numerous barriers—poverty, oppression and unbelievable odds—to epitomize the American Dream. Solely for his conservative voice, Mr. Thomas's glaring omission from the National Museum of African American History and Culture is a travesty. This heartless institution advocates acceptance and inclusion while exposing to the world their blatant two-faced hypocrisy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

Halloween “Hillary” In High School Hoot

The purpose of education is to prepare students for the world. This is true at every level including high school. Like college, U.S. high schools are microcosms of American society. Therefore, it's singularly appropriate that Halloween caricatures of a highly contentious presidential election would make a comical appearance within schoolhouse walls.

That high school was Robert E. Lee in Staunton, Va., and the adults in question were look-alikes: principal Mark Rowicki as Trump and secretary Stephanie Corbett as Clinton. As wearing a suit is standard fare for any administrator, Trump's Reaganesque slogan “Make America Great Again” cap and campaign button were the tipoffs. Yet, the “controversy” involves Ms. Corbett's portrayal of the Democratic nominee back under FBI investigation for criminal wrongdoing (read: Server-gate and Charity-gate). She donned a short blond wig, an orange prison jumpsuit with a waist chain and padlock. For good measure, Ms. Corbett proudly wore a “Department of Justice” name tag reading Hillary R. Clinton.

Only deluded liberals—with eyes squeezed shut and hands petulantly pressed over ears—entirely ignore the reality of Hillary Clinton's lawbreaking and corruption. They are the ones who refuse to see truth (or the humor of a Halloween prank). Repressive progressives slickly conceal their fascist impulses in the fictional assertion that a “political agenda” has been pushed on impressionable teenagers. Their complaint is quite some Halloween trick!

Well, First Amendment expression be damned! As the next president's decisions (read: the selection of perhaps up to 3 future Supreme Court justices) will directly affect their generation the school has the duty to educate these future voters as to the “two characters” currently vying for the presidency. The best choice on Election Day is crystal clear: the one not represented in Halloween orange prisoner's garb.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Blathering “badder” Ginsburg

“I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that. Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

“He is a faker; he has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He [as she] really has an ego.”

— “Objective” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

It's no surprise an egotistical crone supports a lying witch. (Still, as every American citizen, jurist Ginsburg is entitled to her personal opinions, warped as they obviously are.) As she was appointed to the high court by Hill's philandering hubby Bill, it would be somewhat understandable if her stated reason for support of the coronated Democrat was misguided nepotism. But it's not. This veteran of the Supreme Court is just another partisan; an unapologetic ideologue wearing a black justice's robe. How can a person charged with faithfully interpreting the Constitution—an ultimate arbiter of our laws—support a plainly immoral, lawless creature for U.S. president?

The mind frankly boggles at Ms. Ginsburg's shameless audacity. In what alternative universe does one as she publicly excuse the candidate constantly under threat of multiple federal indictments, but criticize the populist outsider who isn't? This “great legal mind” is so pickled she can't imagine a Donald Trump presidency? Obviously insulated by her lofty perch, she is so far removed from reality she feels threatened by the pro-Constitution Republican (pledged to make America great again)? Does this Big Sister timeshare in “The Twilight Zone” or just perpetually reside in George Orwell's “1984”?

Barack Obama's fascist “fundamental transformation of America” has completely mangled Ronald Reagan's First World beacon of liberty. Now, America is an unrecognizable ultra-constitutional husk, no better than a Third World banana republic. Indeed, the wrongdoing of Obama's imperial “leadership from behind” has seeped like sludge into every major aspects of the executive branch: the White House, the weaponized IRS, the incompetent EPA, the blind Justice Department—and the hobbled FBI. Even the politically cowed do-nothing Republican Congress is not immune. Further, with the tragic passing of conservative icon Antonin Scalia, even the Supreme Court hangs in the most precarious balance: philosophically stalemated 4 to 4. This razor's edge is borne out by Ms. Ginsburg's fellow travelers on the bench. Specifically, I refer to the high court's “Leona Helmsley,” the coddled Sonia Sotomayer. One more rotten apple such as these (the next president may chose as many as three replacements) will doom the country to unimaginable leftist ruin for decades to come.

It's no laughing matter. Even given millennials' misbelief that TV's “Judge Judy” (Sheindlin) is a member of Ruth Ginsburg's elitist country club. (Much as one wishes she is, she's not. Yet, Ms. Sheindlin's no-nonsense adherence to law makes the future New Zealand bound Ms. Ginsburg the real faker here). A simple truth: a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Judge Judy's America.

As a cautionary tale, see the untold collateral damage of electing Democrats/progressives. That specifically means all politicians surnamed Clinton—and their bad judicial appointees like the appropriately nicknamed “Notorious RBG.”

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

Trump's convention inferno

Megafires are a phenomenon in nature when debris like branches, dead leaves and dry pine needles are allowed to collect year upon year, sometimes decade upon decade. Add to that hotter and drier climates, and Man's understandable intention to suppress fire. These conditions result in uncontrollable, earth-scorching super-fires such as the one in Yarnell, Arizona in 2013 that killed 19 brave souls; the entirety of the hotshot crew sent in to extinguish it. In 2016, the political landscape has an analogous experience: front-runner Donald Trump. Will he destroy the GOP (as the “Paul Ryan” establishment fears) or will his bile produce a healthier more determined conservative response to intrusive big-government, our woe-filled country, and terrorist-infested world left in shambles by eight years of Barack Obama?

The answer is unknowable 'til election day, but the political tea leaves can be read. Trump is a complete wild card: a sword that cuts both ways. The positive is his true genius is in marketing himself as an “outsider” (who truthfully cannot be “bought” because he is already a billionaire.) While he is not a professional politician (a good thing), anyone who has the “for sale” Clintons to his wedding isn't exactly a babe in the woods when it comes to politics. Essentially, Mr. Trump is running a insurgent third party-style campaign within the umbrella of the Republican Party and it has the elites shaking in their loafers (also a good thing). However, his straight-talk is so unfiltered, his answers so unconsidered they are flippant (read: women “punished” for having legal abortions. Seriously?). One wonders if he is actually a Republican or the progressives caricature of the misogynistic Frankenstein monster they wrongly think a Republican is.

Indeed, Trump's populist rage against insulated do-nothing Republicans and lawless, spendthrift Democrats are the layers of brush, political dead wood Mr. Trump's “firebrand” candidacy is blazing a trail rapidly through. Yet, same as any fire can warm, it can just as readily singe. Is Mr. Trump the former, the latter or both? That is the fundamental question that frames his surprisingly successful candidacy.

On the other hand, there is Ted Cruz, the safer, happy medium between maverick and Washington insider. He has won Wisconsin primary by a robust 13 percent. Will he have the electoral juice to secure the Republican nomination (and defeat Hillary Clinton) or the class to put the people's will first given the current likelihood of a Trump presidency? That means waiting 'til 2020 or beyond (At 70, Trump will best “oldest” Ronald Reagan's 69 years). Complicating all of these moving parts is the economic tipping point for a country given its ever-mounting 19 trillion dollar debt. With a University of Pennsylvania degree in economics, perhaps a businessman like Mr. Trump is better suited to make the hard choices of the near future to rescue America from insolvency? In any case, at only 45, Mr. Cruz has plenty of time. But for what precisely? With the Supreme Court vacancy needing a strict constitutionalist, I wonder if the country would not benefit more in the long-term from 30 years on the court than eventually (perhaps) the executive branch.

Add to this already tangled mess, the self-preserving interests of Republican party leaders, elected officials and deep-pocketed special interests (read: the aforementioned “forest decay” fueling Donald Trump's “megafire” candidacy). These power players are so invested in maintaining the status quo they are ironically willing to facilitate the convention chaos that will likely result in at the high cost of handing the presidency (and the philosophical balance of the Supreme Court) by default to the corrupt Democrat. Even now, these elitists unhappy with Trump (uncontrollable) and Cruz (unlikable) scheme for a brokered convention to insert a hand-picked third option ( Paul Ryan?) who will lose in the general election. (Indeed, how is this top-down exercise any different from Democrats' superdelegates where the fix has been in for Hillary Clinton since day one?) This is the nuclear option that shatters the GOP: new and loyal general election voters will be disenfranchised, Trump might renege on a third party run (and who would blame him), and the rank and file will further suffer under Hillary's version of Obama's legacy-preserving third term. Meanwhile, the GOP elites will “lose” gracefully over Manhattans, and the smoke not emitted by the glow of their self-satisfied cigarettes will be the American Way on fire.

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

Wasting space with uninformed views

The Washington Times' Letters to the Editor section has shrunk from a traditional newspaper column to that of the size of a post card (done, I presume, for budgetary reasons.) Then, this tiny, precious space is filled with the vacuous views of progressives.

Tuesday's topics: an anti-Trump piece, and an anti-Republican piece for good measure. Regarding “Trump unfit for presidency,” the contributor said, “Never before in American history has a person of Trump's self-absorbed authoritarian mindset come so close to the Oval Office?” Delusion? Those exact qualities describe current Oval Office occupant Barack Obama! Similarly, the second neophyte in “Supreme Court needs nine” laments Mr. Obama's inability to wrest the Senate's constitutional consent for his Supreme Court pick. Indeed, out of the mouth of this babe comes drooling: “I think I deserve to live in a country that follows its constitution.” That's precisely what Senate Republicans are doing in this matter: not giving approval—their purview. Clearly, this millennial has no idea how our system of government actually functions.

Still, we agree on one thing. If Republicans had followed the Constitution and impeached Mr. Obama for repeated executive overreach—clear to anyone who understands our founding document—he would have been somewhat reined in even if not removed from office. And long-term our country would be the better for it. The colossal mess it's currently in is due to both sides of our political leadership not heeding Constitutional strictures.

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

Rare political football fumbles

Generally, I swear by the learned views of Washington Times columnists rather than at them.  But these political “bedfellows” must have collectively got off the wrong side of the mattress Tuesday morning. 

Regarding R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.'s “Hillary the Inevitable:” he completely neglects to mention the all-important super-delegates—30% of the total dictated by Democrat party “insiders” like madam's husband Bill (no nepotism there) —which gives Hillary a 394 to 44 lead over socialist Sanders heading into Clinton-friendly South Carolina's upcoming Saturday primary.  Further, this Soviet-style control (tellingly non-existent in the GOP) ensures no repeat upstart candidate á la Barack Obama in 2008.  Lastly, as Socialist/Democrat talking heads have no discernible differences of opinion on any issue, one needs no “lucky” Iowa coin flips to understand the pack mentality.  Even no-go gaff-prone Joe knows: the fix is in for Clinton 2.0 in 2016.

Regarding Charles Hurt's “[K]amikazi stunt by Ted Cruz”: I, for one, am glad someone with a history of filibustering Obamacare is on record to put the kibosh on whatever animal, vegetable or mineral Mr. Obama nominates to the Supreme Court to replace recently deceased conservative icon Antonin Scalia.  As a Harvard-trained lawyer, Mr. Cruz is better equipped to understand the proper meaning of “advise and consent” rather than Mr. Hurt.  Ted's right: Republican's control the legislative agenda (read: voting).  To inform this lame-duck president his goose is cooked in this matter is “advising.”  Such an action is well within the Senate's purview not to give “consent.” 

Mr. Cruz both honors the Constitution and stands up for principle, something scandal-prone Hillary is completely devoid of.  That's called backbone: a thing sorely lacking in jellied beltway politicians.  Incidentally, its absence also explains Donald Trump's meteoric rise in the polls.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

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

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

Justice Sotomayor: laws, not wages for the 'little people'

After almost 7 years of the often equally diabolical and hapless Obama Administration, it is easy to detect the overpowering scent of far-left hypocrisy emanating from progressives in Washington. First, a lawless, ultra-Constitutional president who consistently issues overreaching proclamations by executive fiat. Now, a rogue Supreme Court has likewise overstepped its bounds by imposing law from the bench.  In so doing, the high court has completely usurped Congress' constitutionally-defined role as legislator instead of confining itself to its proprietary domain of “interpreting” already written law.  Naturally, I coyly refer to the recently determined gay marriage debate between the thousands of years-old traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage (based upon First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religious expression) versus the gerrymandered manipulation of the equal protection clause (intended only to prevent discrimination not proactively mandate “new” law).  Apparently, one of the justices in particular, Sonia Sotomayor—perhaps based upon Mr. Obama's longstanding nihilistic example—feels especially entitled to also “make up the rules” as she goes along.

Specifically, Ms. Sotomayor has parlayed her lofty position on the Supreme Court to attract a collection of serfs at her whim as maids, servants, cooks, butlers and chauffeurs in technical violation, this time, of long established U.S. minimum wage labor laws.  Based upon her actions, perhaps Ms. Sotomayor should be rightly viewed as the Leona Helmsey of the court.  Just insert the word “laws” for “taxes” and all of the rest of us 'little people' know exactly where we stand.  In this regard, one wonders if her judicial robes conceal not a gavel, but a queen's scepter.  Hopefully, the unpaid lady's maid who likely dresses Ms. Sotomayor will someday make some bucks with a tell-all book.

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