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

“Pimping” Progressives Ignore Black Community

“It is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no other race in America. ... Where we’re being pimped [politically] like prostitutes ... [promised everything, but] we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests. Barack Obama, our president, served two terms. The first black president ever, but did our condition get better? Did things get better? The condition got worse.” – Quanell X, Houston's New Black Panther leader

“You live in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. What the hell do you have to lose?” – Donald Trump, on the black community mistakenly voting for Democrats rather than the GOP, the party of Abraham Lincoln

Ironically, the group that has suffered the most under the first black president, Barack Obama, is the black community. In one telling example, the black youth unemployment rate has been 393% higher than the national average. Even worse, his home city, nicknamed Chiraq (a combination of Chicago and Iraq), is more dangerous to his fellows than certain ISIS-controlled Middle East war zones. Recently, Bull's basketball player Dwyane Wade’s cousin, 32-year-old Nykea Aldridge, was shot to death on the south side while pushing her baby in a stroller. Comparing Chicago's death toll to American combat fatalities in Afghanistan, Washington Times columnist Tammy Bruce brilliantly summarized:

“In Afghanistan, from the start of the war in 2001 to August 2016, there have been 2,384 American casualties. In Chicago, since 2009 to August 2016, there have been 3,686 homicides. In other words, under President Obama’s watch, there have been 1,302 more people murdered in an American city in half the time compared to the longest war in U.S. history.”

That's overwhelmingly black-on-black homicide. Per the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama has made 25 trips since becoming president—mostly for fundraising and/or pleasure—with only 7 reportedly for policy issues such as community dysfunction. That works out to one visit per year for every year this president has breathed the rarefied air of the Washington bubble. Yet, Mr. Obama's blasé attitude is obvious. When one habitually (and frequently) vacations at millionaire playgrounds in Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard, why should he (or first lady, Michelle) care about the deplorable state of an abandoned former hometown?

Of course, Barack Obama doesn't. Beyond lip service “concern” of the rising body count, this is. Per the Free Beacon, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, “Well, I’m not aware of any specific prescription that the president’s prepared to put forward to address the situation just in Chicago.” What other response would one expect from this tragedy-ignoring president? He remained on a two week golfing vacation while Black Lives Matter burned Milwaukee, and Baton Rouge was deluged by major flooding. The fact that both calamities disproportionately affected black populations made absolutely no difference to him. Mr. Obama made a lackadaisically late appearance to the Louisiana disaster zone. For her part, Mrs. Clinton didn’t bother to show up at all.

In the modern era the pandered-to black community has repeatedly been duped into voting for “down with the struggle” Democrats at near 90%. These progressives purveyors of “black victimization” (read: blame “racist” whitey) show up every election cycle with closed eyes, and the promise of more welfare subsistence living. (In truth, Hillary Clinton is an outspoken admirer of white supremacist icon Margaret Sanger.) Right after Election Day, Democrats' do Mr. Obama's disappearing act. Anyone who thinks otherwise is indeed a victim—of self-inflicted ignorance.

Sometimes the light of new awareness emanates from unexpected places. If Quanell X, a Black Panther leader, acknowledges that Barack Obama has “pimped” and betrayed the black community, hopefully he will find similar courage to speak out against Mr. Obama's more-of-the-same would-be successor. Even unpatriotic, anthem-sitting QB Colin Kaepernick has brought needed attention to Mrs. Clinton history of demonizing the black community, “You have Hillary, who has called black kids, or black teens, ‘Super-predators.'” Likewise in 1996, she said, “We need to bring them to heel.” She's a self-obsessed elitist publicly uttering hate speech: no friend to black people—then or now.

By dumping Hillary minorities have nothing to lose, but everything to gain. True economic and social improvement for the downtrodden will only come from the GOP—and specifically border-securing, job-creating billionaire capitalist Donald Trump.

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

Basic Obama unknowns plague presidency, legacy

As “Christians,” Barack and Michelle Obama should easily recognize Matthew 15:18, in which it is written: “But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.” For the Obamas, it seems, honesty comes through various historically odd slips of the tongue that reveal truth despite MSM narratives designed to cover up and obscure.

The controversy starts with what Mr. Obama's “real name” is. At one point during his formative years—an Indonesian childhood infused with the study of the Islamic holy book the Koran—our 44th president took on a step-father's last name. Back then, and later as an undergraduate at Columbia University, he was known as Barry Soetoro. (Ironically, as president, Mr. Obama also has trouble appropriately “naming” things such as calling domestic terrorism “workplace violence;” ISIS as ISSL; terrorism obviously perpetrated by radical Islamic extremists in San Bernardino, as such.)

Specifically, this myopic obtuseness explains Mr. Obama's inflexible, progressive ideology, and reputation for cool, personal aloofness. Likewise, time has made clear his consistently tone-deaf policies and politics that are, by and large, completely out of touch with the American people. (Much like his previously described unorthodox upbringing).

Indeed, this inability to label things what they actually are, speaks to Mr. Obama's delusion that the world should be as he “mandates it” rather than meeting it where it is. Indeed, Mr. Obama's Sal Alinsky brand of divisive, “destroy within” rabble-rousing is the antithesis to JFK's embrace of “being American” as a unifying ideal of Christian brotherhood that overlooks superficial differences that Mr. Obama exploits for personal political gain.

For Mr. Kennedy, we should selflessly aspire to our purer instincts modeled by Jesus Christ's gentle example. Yet, Mr. Obama embodies the opposite. For him, everything is “burn, baby, burn,” a violent upheaval coded by the soft innocuous phrase, the “fundamental transformation of America.” What it really means: tis better to rule in a Democrat-created first world redistributionist, big government Hell (à la socialist Bernie “90% tax rate” Sanders). Hence, the last 7 years of the ignoble Obama Administration is finally laid bare.

However, the enigma at its center—and basic facts related to the man himself—remain a mystery. Fundamental to this dynamic is the Obama “is he, or is he not” this-or-that? For example, beyond his surname, what is Mr. Obama's place of birth? Kenya, Hawaii, somewhere else? In any case, in Denver, Michelle Obama publicly muddied the waters in August of 2008 during her GLBT luncheon speech: “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test for the very point of showing folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested, and we did it as a couple.” Would any worldly and educated spouse in a 20 year marriage ever mistake her husband's birth country? Moreover, would any American generally confuse a home country with somewhere else?

This begs another question: because of his well established connections with foreign lands, is Mr. Obama somehow “A closeted American?” On the other hand, speaking of closets, if the claims of outspoken homosexual Larry Sinclair have merit, is Mr. Obama in the closet of a different kind? While the answer is intimate, is never likely to be known and is not the public's concern, it is a relief to know that the Obamas are in the practice of taking HIV tests. This is the point: after almost two full presidential terms, isn't it amazing that Mr. Obama remains so ill-defined in such basic ways?

Now, we move to the big kahuna: the president's religion. For 20 years, Mr. Obama allegedly sat in the back of the Christian church of anti-American ranting Jeremiah “America's chickens are coming home to roost” Wright who proclaimed from the pulpit “God damn America.” Specifically, in a September 2008 pre-election first term interview with George Stephanopoulous, Mr. Obama said:

“You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith and you’re absolutely right that that has not …”
Stephanopoulos (interrupting): “Your Christian faith.”
Obama: “My Christian faith. Well, what I’m saying …”

Utilizing the above nebulous history as context and fast-forwarding to today, we now learn per Washington Times columnist Tammy Bruce that Mr. Obama's inexplicable foreign policy is being heavily influenced by Koranic prophesy. Hence, the irrational position that America should not put puts on the ground in order to destroy ISIS because that is “what the latter wants,” some apocalyptic battle.

To truly be known, any person should be viewed by their faith-informed actions not their words. By definition, Christians traditionally look to the Holy Bible for guidance and prophesy, not elsewhere. On this basis, the religious question regarding Mr. Obama is more than answered. What remains is what else may also be true of the most polarizing president ever to helm the country.

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

The evolution of marriage

Once again, in her column "Courting gay marriage," Tammy Bruce demonstrates the wisdom of a modern day King Solomon.  The LGBT community, under the principle of equal protection regardless of sex, race, gender, class or sexual orientation guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, should be entitled to marry.  This is the identical right of any heterosexual couple.  On a practical level, "gay" marriage doesn't diminish the traditional ideal of male-female unions in any way.  In either case, it is two consenting adults choosing to lead their lives together which generally strengthens the societal fabric and should be celebrated notwithstanding the disco balls, margaritas or drag queens.  

 

As Bob Dylan prophetically sang of social mores in 1964, "The Times They Are A-Changin.'"  Today, for example, it would be unconscionable for public opinion to condemn interracial marriage.  However, it was not so long ago—previous to 1967 to be precise—that it did.  In 1958, in a Washington, DC ceremony (where gay marriage is incidentally currently legal), the aptly named Richard Loving, a white man, married Mildred Jeter, a black woman, in violation of Virginia state statutes against miscegenation to which they plead guilty.  In lieu of serving a one year prison sentence, the Lovings could not return to Virginia together for 25 years.  Fortunately a decade later the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held this prohibition to be unconstitutional.  This decision is appropriately commemorated on the 12th day every year in June—named for Juno, the Roman goddess of marriage—not surprisingly the most popular month for weddings.

 

Naturally, differences of opinion are healthy in a democratically free society and all should be respected.  However, using the mechanisms of progressive government to mandate some artificial, one-size-fits-all, top-down solution won't work in this situation.  That’s splitting the baby in half: neither the traditional Christian nor the GLBT community wins.  Therefore, when two sets of competing values with equal validity exist each state should determine its position based upon regional cultural standards.  At the moment, 37 states and the District of Colombia are doing just that.  If the other states don't permit the performance of homosexual marriage ceremonies so be it.  These others should just respect the legal contract that gay marriages confer from their state of origin.  No fuss, no muss, the problem organically solves itself.  No doubt King Solomon, and Ms. Bruce, would approve.

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

‘The veto of Arizona’s religious freedom bill is only the beginning’ (Tammy Bruce, The Washington Times)

Demonstrating the wisdom of a modern day King Solomon must either be a great gift or a great burden.  As Ms. Bruce correctly predicted, my knee-jerk reaction was to join the faceless, nay-saying chorus.  Then I realized that she is right.  Christians acting out of religious conviction is valid and should be respected even when it is disagreed with.  Indeed, no one would force a Jewish organization to serve pork or a Muslim organization to produce images of Mohammad.  Politicizing the issue by using the mechanisms of progressive government or the force of law to mandate some artificial, one-size-fits-all, politically correct Orwellian Utopia won’t work.  That’s splitting the baby in half: nobody wins.  Therefore, when two sets of competing values with equal validity exist the marketplace should determine the results.  Simply put, if you don’t like the vendor take your business elsewhere.  Nobody is harmed and everyone’s needs are met.  No doubt King Solomon would approve.  But I suspect Ms. Bruce knew that already.

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