Traitorous Tears for Terrorists

“This executive order was mean-spirited and un-American”. – Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on January 29, 2017

Ah, the Fellini farce that is the modern-day Democratic Party. A laughingstock headed by a crying, middle aged pajama boy as Senate Minority Leader. (This guy's in desperate need of Linus's blanket and a pacifier.) In 2011, Barack Obama's secret six month ban on Iraq refugees is no different than Trump's new executive order. In fact, the seven jihad-infested countries affected now were first identified by the Obama Administration!

Pro-abortion Democrats, like Schumer and Obama, don't value human life anywhere: in the womb, on Chicago streets, or abroad. Recall, Obama's crocodile tears for his hometown—the nation's murder capital for five of the eight years of his presidency—that he did nothing about. Furthermore, this winner of 2009's Nobel Peace Prize dropped 26,171 bombs on predominantly Muslim nations in 2016. Twenty-four hours a day: one every twenty minutes. The Guardian characterized this Orwellian warmonger as follows:

“President Obama did reduce the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries—a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.”

So much for the “Great Peacemaker”—and one goose-stepping Democrat's teary-eyed claim to care.

Like Obama, Schumer's weepy theatrics are nothing more than a political stunt. As the ex-president mourns his Trump-dismantled legacy, Schumer bemoans Democrats' diminished power. Specifically, he's upset at the absence of future illegal voters (that unfettered migration and open borders perpetuate).

For progressives, every action is a manipulation designed to shore up their waning influence. These insulated liberal ideologues have utterly forgotten their purpose: to represent citizens' rights. That means honoring the Constitution, the rule of law, and most of all—Americans' physical safety. The fact that Democrats advocate for others with no legal standing is telling. Thus, Chucky's antics are an egotist's dirty trick. An illusion hiding who's actually mean-spirited and un-American.

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

Hillary on Abortion: Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde

“I admire [white supremacist and Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.... I am really in awe of her.” – Hillary Clinton on receiving that organization's highest honor in 2009

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” – Hillary Clinton on NBC’s “Meet the Press” April 3, 2016

While science continues to roll back the timetable for life's inception, that reality has been counterbalanced by the autonomy of a woman's body—and her decision-making right regarding it. Between these two evolving points in time, what remains troublesome is the on demand aspect: the misuse of abortion as de facto birth control (especially related to the termination of late or third trimester pregnancies). As a contextual example, the black community accounts for 36 percent of all abortions (despite being approximately 13 percent of the total U.S. population). Further, since 1973, there have been more than 15 million black children aborted. Given such statistics, is the adage 'the most dangerous place for a child is the womb,' any mystery?

The human procreative power innately compels a basic level of personal responsibility. After all, this is an age when biology is well-understood. Prophylactics, like (often free) men's condoms, are widely available. Similarly, women have multiple low-cost contraceptive choices including the morning-after pill. In short, with minimal planning (under the lion's share of circumstances), there is no reason for an unwanted pregnancy. That is, unless the female in question has made poor personal decisions. If she has, why should society be complicit in paying for her irresponsibility; her choice to end the overwhelmingly likely development of a viable offspring?

As a main purpose of government is to protect its citizens (via funding the police and the military), it's natural for its philosophical orientation to be life-affirming. Thus, the Hyde Amendment which restricts some federal funds to certain welfare recipients (except in cases of rape or incest) makes perfect sense. (Interestingly, an updated version was signed into law by Bill Clinton on October 22, 1993.) Therefore, the only reason the law has come under fire recently is because progressives want abortion available at any time, and under all circumstances. Therefore, they spin the absurdist tale that the 40 year old law is about 'telling a woman how to lead her life' (read: unfairly saddling poor women with the financial drain of unwanted children). So, under the illusion of being “women's rights advocates,” Democrats actually push a different agenda entirely: big government dependence (that they vitally control). Therefore, in this matter, the suggestive science—and individual responsibility—are completely ignored by them.

Hillary Clinton made a Freudian slip when she used the phrase “unborn person” rather than a fetus. She casts abortion narrowly as a sacrosanct women's right, then muddles her basic claim by inadvertently acknowledging the fetus's personhood. The unborn may technically have no constitutional rights. Yet, what of that other foundational American document, the Declaration of Independence's Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? (Apparently, Hillary applies this principle to gun control, but not abortion.) Moreover, as the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Mrs. Clinton approves the historic repeal of the Hyde Amendment while simultaneously enjoying the reputation as a “child advocate”? One gets whiplash decoding her hypocritical double standards; how she plays every side of this issue.

Feminists and conservatives agree: a woman's body is hers, not the state's. Therefore, she must logically own the consequences of its use—same as a man. Indeed, to compel our life-preserving government directly into the any time life termination business is a Soylent Green style schizophrenic expectation. What is truly “cruel” here is not the restrictive Hyde Amendment. It's irresponsible women who shift the blame for their own life-ending inhumanity. Equally culpable are outspoken Jekyll and Hyde politicians like Hillary Clinton who repeatedly finance racist Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood under the guise of providing preventative women's health services.

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

Hillary Channels Margaret Sanger

Whenever I write about Democrats and their politics, I feel very much like Alice (on an acid trip) down the rabbit hole in an Orwellian parallel universe that puts Louis Carroll’s dystopian “Wonderland” to shame.  She who will be the Democratic nominee (and statistically is even money to become the next POTUS) – awarded Plan Parenthood’s highest honor in 2009; named after its founder, outspoken racist and eugenics advocate Margaret Sanger – claims that “black lives matter” but publicly defends an institution whose executives were caught on hidden camera video selling aborted fetal organs?  As secretary of state, under America’s first black president, no less, Mrs. Clinton said in her acceptance speech, “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously – her courage, her tenacity, her vision.”  She further affirmed, “I am really in awe of her.”

Let’s see what Mrs. Clinton finds so laudable about the well-known Margaret Sanger: a leading voice of eugenics, defined as a belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits.  This selfsame philosophy (and its disproven pseudo-science) informed Nazi Germany’s racial policies and extermination of Jews and so-called “life not fit for life.”  Essentially, Mrs. Sanger’s view was the creation of a (white) “master race” by determining or otherwise controlling who has children.  Specifically, in a 1925 essay called “The Need of Birth Control in America,” Mrs. Sanger wrote: “Such human weeds [defined by her in published writings alternately as morons/defectives, delinquents/misfits/the maladjusted, and dependents/the poor] clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world, we must cultivate our garden.”  Her radical solution: to segregate and/or neuter those she deemed racially or socially undesirable.  To this end, she influenced state legislatures and local jurisdictions to sterilize “unfit” young people.  That was the underlying purpose of Planned Parenthood, started by “trailblazer” Sanger in 1916.

So why would Mrs. Clinton proudly accept such a dubious honor named for such a nefarious character (especially in light of the history, of which it is reasonable to assume she is aware) and further defend that organization today with the exposure of business practices that would have given Adolf Hitler pause?  Indeed, how can she claim to be a supporter of minority lives and not publicly condemn Planned Parenthood for their profiteering and lack of respect for human dignity?  How in her twisted little mind is the bartering of baby body parts by the powers-that-be at Planned Parenthood – which targets minorities and the poor, underwritten by 500 million taxpayer dollars each year (self-reporting only 3 percent abortive services, or 327,166 [per 10/1/11-9/30/12 figures]) – equate to an “attack on a woman's right to choose”?  Certainly, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t want to address certain truths, so instead she makes an absurd straw-man argument à la Obama by changing the subject.  Indeed, a woman’s right to control her body (which is irrelevant to this situation) has nothing to do with how fetal tissue is scientifically treated or sold in the marketplace.  If the last six years have taught the American people anything, it is that someone who cannot deal with realities on their face has no business being president in 2016, especially when her only qualification – besides a failed record – is the fact that she is a woman who feels some elitist entitlement to the post. 

Mrs. Clinton needs to send back her prized Planned Parenthood Lucite block that bear her and Margaret Sanger’s names – an award that symbolically promotes racial misogyny and abortion.  Until she does, it remains a hypocritical memento to a person – like her amoral former U.S. president husband – who in true Clintonian fashion stands for nothing but her own self-promotion.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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