“Character” Cruz: Political Pariah

“The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.” – John Wooden, UCLA's 10-time national champion basketball coach

The inverse axiom of this statement—when everyone is watching—is equally valid. Given the global importance of First World America, national political leadership is supposed to be led by adults willing to make the tough, country-preserving calls. Why then, do today's leaders (on both sides of the aisle) act as petulant, ego-driven children?

In this case, I refer to coy Ted Cruz's Trump non-endorsement convention speech. What columnist Charles Krauthammer succinctly likened to “the longest [political] suicide note in U.S. History.” If Mr. Cruz could not wholeheartedly support the people's choice, he had no business being on that RNC stage. Specifically, even sore losers like Ohio governor John Kasich and the dynastic Bush Family (read: JEB), had the good sense to stay away. Yet, not this mighty orator of conservative values, this Texas senator who exposed himself to all the world as a two-faced Judas. As his personal 2020 presidential ambitions now favor a Hillary Clinton victory, Mr. Cruz used the petty excuse of a personal grievance with Trump to put self-interest before the fate of a nation.

Ted Cruz nebulously advised the electorate to “vote your conscience” in November. His feeble attempt to hamstring Mr. Trump has, in actuality, slit his own throat. In the likelihood Mr. Trump wins, Mr. Cruz will be correctly marginalized as untrustworthy. On the other hand, if the Republican nominee loses, Mr. Cruz will rightfully be blamed. Either way, the record-setting number of Trump voters will look elsewhere in the future.

Given his established non-team player reputation in the Senate, Mr. Cruz is already viewed askance by fellow Republicans. After this latest self-serving stunt, he will never be embraced by them. Further, he will never be trusted by the Democrats either. Politically, he is a man alone; an island unto himself. Although Ted Cruz stated publicly that he did not want the post, he could have been a Supreme Court justice. He might even have eventually become commander-in-chief by following Ronald Reagan's path (ultimately supporting incumbent Gerald Ford despite losing a contentious primary contest to him in 1976.) Due to his fatal flaw—hubris—none of that can happen now. He has consigned himself as a footnote to history. Undone over a couple of terrible and untrue insults regarding his father and his wife. Welcome to politics 101, Teddy: put your big boy pants on and deal with it. Despite the outlier of corrupt Hillary Clinton's meteoric rise, those with authentic character put country first, period.

To contrast, Abraham Lincoln's fortitude makes him first in the pantheon of many great U.S. presidents. Recall Spielberg's “Lincoln” (2012) played sublimely by the 3-time Oscar-winning actor Daniel Day-Lewis. Against the heart wrenching backdrop of immense personal tragedy—the death of Lincoln's beloved 11-year old son Willie (in 1962) and his grief-stricken, inconsolable wife, Mary—the President successfully won the Civil War (the bloodiest American conflict threatening to tear the country in half). To add to his Herculean labors, the 16^th U.S. president finagled passage of the 13^th Amendment over strong Democrat Party resistance which ended the scourge of slavery in America for all time.

Monuments honoring such men of character like Lincoln and Reagan—those willing to sacrifice and/or make hard choices to the greater benefit of the country—will never be built to the likes of Ted Cruz. His misbehavior at the convention conclusively demonstrates that his lofty rhetoric is meaningless because it is not backed up by corresponding action.

In the final analysis, for graciously permitting Ted Cruz a prime time speaking slot, Donald Trump is the magnanimous one. That bigger person is likely White House bound. By not being similarly conciliatory, the truth about the Texas senator is laid bare. He is a small person who threw away the possibility of lasting greatness (ironically for himself and the country) because it required honoring his public pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee. A cautionary tale about not keeping one's word, and the exorbitant cost of being thin-skinned (unlike Lincoln). For him, all is lost over a grievance stuck in Cruz's craw during a now forgotten primary season.

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

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

Obama's Chicken Little Fascism

Truth be told, chickens really do roost together. Specifically, I refer to Donald Trump's “no respect” stooge, Mr. Obama and the communist duo of ruling dictators, the brutal Castro Brothers. For 55 years, since stridently anti-communist Democrat JFK and the 1960s Cuban Missile Crisis when Russian Soviets tried to posit US-striking nuclear missiles on the island (disbanded after a successful U.S. naval blockade), America's relations have been in a Cold War deep-freeze.

This week as another part of his paper tiger legacy (like his failed Hillary Clinton Russian “reset” or his Middle East destabilizing-ISIS flourishing U.S. troop withdraw from Iraq), Mr. Obama is the first U.S. president to visit this present-day slave state since Calvin Coolidge in 1928. Located ninety miles south of Key West, Florida, Coolidge's journey took three days via battleship. By contrast, Mr. Obama “winged it” in three hour luxury on Air Force One, the alms of normalized U.S. relations gifted like candy from his coattails. As usual, the oft vacationing Mr. Obama will enjoy himself with his extended Cuban-background “selfie” celebration for one, but the human rights abuses continue unchanged. (This reality is further echoed by presidential candidate Ted Cruz who detailed that nine refugees drowned over the weekend in a futile attempt to escape the same hellhole the obliviously smug Mr. Obama so blithely tours.)

As with the Iranian nuclear deal where the Ayatollahs gained everything and Mr. Obama nothing (but the empty political bragging rights of a slow-roll “deal” that guarantees those religious radicals offensive nuclear weapons after he is out of office in 2017), it seems our president has never met a totalitarian thug he kowtow to. But, why wouldn't he like such men—strong-arm bullies mirroring his own proclivities—who act beyond law (or human decency) with all the same impunity of an imperial “pen and phone?”

Such are the fascist impulses (a concept historically and factually left-wing, but mis-defined in popular culture as right-wing) clear in the acts of anti-American Barack Obama—and the like-minded leaders he supports. Like the Castros (where opposition is jailed or otherwise literally “silenced”), Mr. Obama's subtler “smiley face” version involves the modern-day corrosive of stifling political correctness, the propagandist MSM, and the “bully” pulpit inherent in the U.S. presidency to steer the political conversation (read: drown out contrary voices.) Indeed, if Cuba is an example of a “political” carrot (read: Obama's hope and change progressive agenda), what then is the stick?

For “change,” a fascist uses any crisis (even an artificial scientifically-squishy one) to relentlessly push a hard leftist ideology over the goal line. In the Obama era, this well-established dynamic is known as alarmist “global warming” (now downgraded to the more innocuously-sounding “climate change.”) Despite First Amendment free speech protections, Mr. Obama's attorney general, Loretta Lynch, is considering the manipulation of racketeering laws to prosecute skeptics. In the final analysis, how is that heavy-handed repression of dissent any different than the Castro regime's state-run media warning its citizens to not protest during Barack & Michelle's Excellent Adventure?

Ignored by the Obamas, America used to be Ronald Reagan's “shining city on a hill”: a beacon for freedom, liberty's clarion call (not to mention a capitalist standard of living worth striving for). Now, America's political leadership turns a blind eye to widespread cruelty to play patty-cake photo op—on bended knee—with other leftist tyrants.

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

For the future: a 2017 anti-amnesty Conservative; A whimsical essay on politics—and time-travel

There's a funny line in the original “Back to the Future” (1985) movie where teenager Marty McFly uses an altered DeLorean to time-travel back to 1955 to the creator of the time machine, Emmett Brown. The inventor inquires who is president in Marty's future. When told, Brown's incredulous reaction: “Ronald Reagan? The actor? Then who's the vice-president? Jerry Lewis?”

That was always the unfair knock of Democrats on Reagan: he was really just an actor “playing at” being commander-in-chief. But the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, then, proved Reagan very much the genuine article. Reagan symbolized the unbreakable American spirit of positive expectation, self-determination and self-reliance. He knew: America can accomplish anything—even the inconceivable—which he achieved in large measure.

What is required is simply the will to do a thing, steered by Christian morality and informed ultimately by kindness and charity. Indeed, his very American political philosophy of “peace through strength” put the Soviets, among others, rightfully on their backsides. Unlike today, his word was backed up by the big stick of unparalleled American military might as well as the carrot of authentic friendship. History bears out the truth: when Reagan spoke, enemies and naysayers alike listened—and in most cases—capitulated. To him, America was a “shining city on a hill;” a light that has dimmed considerably in recent years due to less clear thinking—and less capable leadership.

Contrast that to the anti-Reagan we have in office now: a chronically responsibility-phobic, “lead from behind,” weak-kneed, politically tone-deaf apologist of Western values; a rabble-rousing wholesale disregarder of law, precedent and the Constitution itself; a golf-obsessed Jerry Lewis fop on the world stage emboldening America's enemies and geopolitical foes while simultaneously alienating traditional allies like Israel. Indeed, 7 years of Mr. Obama's tirelessly schoolmarmish “teachable moment” finger-pointing—and equally feckless “red line” pronouncements—are completely ignored by bad actors like Vladimir Putin and ISIS who have flourished in the vacuum where American dominance used to be.

What we have, unfortunately, is an inflexible ideologue of scant ability whose every decision hobbles American strength at home and abroad. To draw a parallel to Chicago—the community Mr. Obama “organized” whose homicide rate (like Baltimore's) is skyrocketing—other “Chicagos” are popping up all over the globe: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa. The specter of ISIS has metastasized, destabilizing the Middle East causing the record-breaking torrent of 60 million migrants disrupting Europe to a greater degree than the terrorism that killed 129 innocents in Paris.

Paris proves that it only takes a handful of radicalized, armed militants. Yet, Mr. Obama can't wait to throw open the doors to a potential small army of 10,000 migrants from Syria; interestingly 96% Islamic versus only 3% Christian. However, given the logic that the terrorist acts are directly tied to religious fervor—and since there is no government to vouch for this group or other practical way to vet them—a litmus test (at minimum) makes sense to someone like Ted Cruz who actually cares about the future safety of the American people.

As commander-in-chief, Mr. Obama has the implicit responsibility to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic. As with porous borders, Mr. Obama has the welcome mat already laid out. To him, any other policy is “... not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.” I, for one, would very much like to know when Mr. Obama's compassion for home-grown Americans is going to start.

This same brand of “compassion” has contributed mightily to the accumulation of 11 million non-Americans within our country or is it 12? Nobody knows the exact number of faceless de facto squatters, hence the logistical problem. Yet, each and every one of them shares a universal label: flagrant flouter of our laws (á la Mr. Obama). Like the president, the current House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) is wrong about the practicality and success of forced relocations. The powers-that-be in government don't like it—frankly neither do I—but mass deportations are called for.

There is precedent: the 1950s “Operation Wetback” expelled 1.5 million Mexicans. No doubt, the process will be ugly. Yet, none of the displaced is a victim as illegal aliens (not squishy, nonsensical politically correct terms like “undocumented immigrants”) chose to come here by their own means rather than honoring our in-place immigration system. In any case, a society is only “fair” when all abide equally to democratically-created laws. Under Democrats—for all the reasons articulated above—is it any wonder why our society is so polarized, fragmented and dysfunctional?

Since we can't time travel to 1980 or 1860, it will take a leader both with Reagan's fortitude and Lincoln's vision (in ending slavery for future, unborn generations) to do that which is difficult and necessary—rather than the 'go-along-get-along' political expediency that has gotten us into these colossal messes in the first place. That's not the Democrats who manipulate America into “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” so long as they can use the influx of new voters to hold political power in perpetuity. Similarly, of the contenders across the aisle, that's also not establishment Republicans (Bush), those soft on immigration (Rubio) or inclined to further compromise (Carson; Trump).

That's my litmus test for president in 2017 and the list is maddeningly short: Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina (withdrawn). Like Marty McFly, I dearly wish I had that time-traveling DeLorean idling in the driveway, ready to bring the perfect candidate “Back to the Future” for Inauguration Day in 2017.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

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

Iowans 'Iffy' on Demagogue Trump vote Cruz

It seems that salt-of-the-earth Iowans have seen through the P.T. Barnum act that is Donald Trump's insurgency and have sensibly chosen a solid conservative, Ted Cruz, with 28%, a 4-point victory.  The element that has makes one wary of The Donald is his style of aggressively impugning dissenters. In the glaring example of Fox moderator Megyn Kelly, it doesn't even rise to that level. Last August, she asked a fair question during the first Fox debate regarding Mr. Trump's publicly uttered misogynistic statements. That makes her a good reporter not Trump's “lightweight, third-rate or bimbo” as he today claims for not liking her query then. Identical to Mr. Obama's habitual, thin-skinned petulance, Mr. Trump is making something that is strictly the business of the political process very personal.

The next leader of the Free World needs to “keep [his] head when all about [him] are losing theirs....”  A standard enumerated in Rudyard Kipling's poem “If.” That's a person made of finer stuff, specifically an even temperament who will honor Constitutional prohibitions. This my-way-or-the-highway form of governance hasn't worked for the last 7 years—and it will work no better with another egotist except with a little 'R' by his name.

Still, any Republican is better than the Democrat/Socialist alternative. Indeed, the only big house Mrs. Clinton belongs in has doors that lock people in and is not painted white. Yet, whomever ends up in the Oval Office should not only speak plainly, but also respect differing opinions as sacrosanct to a healthily functioning democracy. That's not the current national front-runner of either political party who remain Trump and Hillary, a truly iffy scenario for American voters.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

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

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

Angry voters' choice: new face or Clinton devil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WaPo's Spoiled Reporting, Overt Bias

Actual one-day headlines from the primary “news” pages of this Monday's Washington Post, Section A: 'Cuban-Mexican tension is a hurdle for Cruz, Rubio;' 'Rubio and cousin share blood ties but not political ones: He's a Democrat;' 'Rubio's strategic gloom' and 'Some Republican positions do not reflect the party I know.' By contrast, there are zero articles critical of Democrats despite 7 years of the ongoing, ruinous Obama Administration.

Like a Sesame Street grid let's figure out what all these news-masquerading scribbles have in common: all are biased, propagandist smears of Republicans. The specific political reason for targeting the Latin candidates is based on the legitimate fear that Hispanic voters will vote along superficial ethnicity lines, splitting this minority voting bloc vital to Democrat prospects for the White House in 2017. (This is the same calculation that women will automatically vote for Hillary foolishly because of her gender.)

Naturally, The Post trumpets stentorian the week old fish idea that electing presidential front-runner Hillary is somehow special or groundbreaking despite her scandal-laden history and widespread reputation as a liar. In truth, Mrs. Clinton is 25 years beyond her freshness date. Furthermore, The Post is no legitimate supporter of women because it will have no similar praise for conservative star Carly Fiorina.

It seems The Post has completely forgotten its original, non-partisan reporting purpose. Today, it contents itself as a creature of the Democratic Party: to ignore or downplay corruption and repeatedly change the subject from progressives' numerous dirty deeds by unfairly attacking Republicans.

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

“Funny business” conference Obama worldwide scam

Allotted a mere three minutes to speak at the UN “climate change” conference in Paris, our Chicken Little “sky is falling” president—who equates weather changes as a greater threat to civilization than radical Islamic terrorism—rambled and sputtered for 14. (By contrast, Abraham Lincoln’s now world famous Gettysburg Address—which reaffirmed the goodness of a geographically reunified North and South, and encapsulated the American ideal of sacrifice for the greater good of human equality—took just over two minutes.)

Oblivious, Mr. Obama was buzzed five times to get a clue and wrap it up—and didn’t. (The person manning the buzzer gave up after the 11^th minute.) Meanwhile to add to the comic relief, an equally clueless woman crosses in the background behind him twice (at 1:05 and 2:15: bully to the Secret Service). This hysterical video shows our intrepid leader uttering the word “signal” followed by an almost choreographed buzz (2:28). Such a gaffe-prone circumstance more typical of his foot-in-mouth VP Joe “a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S” Biden. As reported solely by the Washington Free Beacon—the 7-year MIA hiatus of the MSM once again in evidence—the clearly flummoxed organizers badly needed one of those old fashioned vaudeville hooks and the famous giant gong from NBC’s ‘70s amateur “talent” show to silence Mr. Obama and drag him into the wings.

Let me be clear: this “weather” summit is Obama’s economic redistribution sham. A veiled effort to use his personal “terror” of raindrops and snowflakes to justify funneling American dollars (borrowed at interest from China due to our ever-growing 19 trillion dollar debt) to third world totalitarian regimes that also use a pen and a phone to get things done. The other world leaders in attendance are happy to let the president drone on and on—in giddy anticipation of their Obama-promised handouts:

“Here in Paris, let’s also make sure that these resources flow to the countries that need help preparing for the impacts of climate change that we can no longer avoid.” ... “There are hundreds of billions of dollars ready to deploy to countries around the world if they get the signal that we mean business this time.” ... “[A]n agreement that helps us lift people from poverty without condemning the next generation to a planet that’s beyond its capacity to repair.”

Obviously, the “people in poverty to be helped” do not refer to Mr. Obama’s fellow citizens as his policies have added 9 trillion to the nation’s red ink—almost double that of all preceding U.S. presidents—in the 7 years he has been in office. More of the “fundamental transformation of America” designed to pulverize America into something no better than the third world hellholes Mr. Obama embraces (read: Cuba).

As with all of Obama’s “weakening” monetary policies of deficit-spending and redistribution of American treasure to ideological allies, the underlying purpose is the further fleecing of America. See the pattern of the Obama doctrine of “rewarding friends and punishing enemies:” the wasted 2009 Obama “stimulus” funneled to green energy Democrat political cronies like the bankrupt Solyndra; the taxpayer funds squandered by pro-Democrat unions controlling GM; the trillion dollars wasted by Obamacare in the big government bureaucratic takeover of free market medicine (which redistributes coverage to the economically downtrodden—not incidentally pro-liberal voters—while ultimately leaving a different 30 million uninsured (read: the “problem” the dubiously named Affordable Care Act was supposed to solve)). This international meeting is more of the same.

JFK was the last true Democrat in the traditional sense of the concept. The divisive, self-obsessed “free stuff” anti-Capitalist triumvirate of Obama-Clinton-Sanders bears no resemblance beyond appropriating the label. JFK famously said: “My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Today that means having a good, long belly laugh at Mr. Obama’s expense—listening for that repeating “signaling” beep for his final exit (left) from the world stage—and electing the most conservative, strict Constitutionalist we can find. A salt-of-the-earth American like Ted Cruz who speaks plainly, commands respect, and is a leader no one would ever hasten from the podium.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

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

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