Obamacare's Embezzlement Scheme

Shockingly, at the rotting core of Barack Obama's signature heath-care law is a crime. When his administration initiated Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies to health insurance companies under Obamacare, it actually misappropriated public funds. Per 18 U.S.C. § 644:

“Whoever, not being an authorized depositary of public moneys, knowingly receives from any disbursing officer, or collector of internal revenue, or other agent of the United States, any public money on deposit, or by way of loan or accommodation, with or without interest, or otherwise than in payment of a debt against the United States, or uses, transfers, converts, appropriates, or applies any portion of the public money for any purpose not prescribed by law is guilty of embezzlement....”

Why do Democrats perpetually get away scot-free with such outrageous wrongdoing?

Recall that the Appropriations Clause is the cornerstone of Congress's “power of the purse”. In other words, only the legislature has the authority to disburse federal funds, not the former president's executive branch. Specifically, that responsibility is defined by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, cl. 1: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” Hence, President Trump's action to immediately terminate said illegal payments.

Naturally, the anti-Trump MSM opposes his rightful action. For example, Washington Post contributor Ilya Somin writes, “Now, President Trump is making the situation worse by trying to use these illegal payments as leverage to force the legislature to do his bidding.” For the record, didn't the Democratically-controlled Congress do Obama's bidding when they passed the ironically named Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010? For context, that's the same bill—without one Republican vote—that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said had to be passed, “...[S]o that you can find out what is in it—away from the fog of the controversy.” That controversy, as this column details, is unceasing.

What liberals don't scramble, it seems, they tend to mix up. For starters, only Obama overstepped here, not Trump. Yet, Mr. Somin continues:

“What is ultimately at stake here is not only the future of the health care law, but of the constitutional separation of powers and the limits of executive branch authority. Trump’s ham-fisted attempt at dealmaking is eroding those limits....”

In truth, Trump's new executive order actually affirms Congress's autonomy. After all, House Republicans filed a lawsuit contending that the CSR payments were illegal. In May 2016, federal district Judge Rosemary Collyer agreed, though she stayed her judgment pending a possible appeal. The basis of her decision was Article I, section 9, cl. 7 of the U.S. Constitution which states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Misconstruing the facts makes Mr. Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University, look foolish. Such intellectual dishonesty is the unfortunate result of obvious political blinders.

As does blaming Mr. Trump for the current dysfunctional state of U.S. health-care policy. After all, The Donald entered presidential politics on June 16, 2015. For five years previously, the GOP establishment repeatedly made promises—subsequently broken—to repeal and replace Obamacare. Irrespective of the president's “bidding,” don't the American people have the right to expect elected representatives to honor their own pledges? Therefore, it takes real chutzpah to criticize the new guy for trying to remedy an escalating problem that proceeded him. Truth-teller Trump tweeted Friday, “ObamaCare is a broken mess. Piece by piece we will now begin the process of giving America the great HealthCare it deserves!” What's wrong with moving the ball forward by taking legal steps that set things right?

In any case, the CSR payouts, made by the Department of Health and Human Services, were a considerable boon to health insurers’ bottom line: about $7 billion annually. How crooked to circumvent Congress—and misuse the Treasury as a slush fund for such ultra-Constitutional plotting! Likewise, how two-faced to publicly malign the very businesses the Obama administration was subsidizing via the back door. Clearly, chicanery rivaling Shakespeare's tangled web!

Importantly, this issue illuminates the interchangeability between progressivism and fascism. After all, didn't Democrats create a health-care behemoth designed to cede private industry (read: 1/6 of the U.S. economy) to jackbooted governmental control? The underlying criminality “greasing the wheels”—same as Obama's empty promises of keeping your doctor, and lowering premiums by $2,500—is apparent for all to see. If, in eight years, anyone had bothered to scrutinize the artifices of political Pinocchio's “hope and change,” that is. In retrospect, partisans voted blindly for a dystopian dream; without the foggiest notion of who—or what—they were really getting.

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

Twisting D'Sousa's “Big Lie”

From his book review of Dinesh D'Sousa's latest, Washington Times columnist Michael Taube gets it wrong. Mr. Taube's article title incorrectly proclaims, “Fascists to the right, fascists to the left”. Yet, the whole point of “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left” is to clarify that Nazism/Fascism/Socialism are political movements exclusive to the left. In other words, despite this scribe's misleading assertion, they are never of the political right. Want an example of a “radical” right-wing group? Try the Tea Party!

To be fair, Mr. Taube touches on Ronald Reagan's famous “60 Minutes” quote from 1975, “If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.” But what else did “The Gipper” say that this reviewer vitally left out? To continue with Mr. Reagan's now prophetic words:

“And what is fascism? Fascism is private ownership—private enterprise—but total government control and regulation. Well isn't this the liberal philosophy? The conservative, so-called, is the one that says less government—get off my back, get out of my pocket—and let me have more control of my own destiny.”

Put simply, these three sister philosophies of big government cannot be of the right. On a related matter, President Trump cannot be a fascist or a socialist because he is a deregulating, unapologetic capitalist! Likewise, he can't be a Nazi either because he is, for example, staunchly pro-Israel. Indeed, Mr. Trump’s “America First” policies of economic self-determination—and his outspoken refutation of liberals and the MSM—define him as a true patriot in our tumultuous modern age.

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

Confederacy Stains Church Windows

In 1953, was it really wrong to commemorate Gen. Robert E. Lee in the stained glass of Washington, D.C.'s National Cathedral? For context, a typical statement from this post-war unifier from March 15, 1866:

“We shall have to be patient, and suffer for awhile at least; and all controversy, I think, will only serve to prolong angry and bitter feelings and postpone the period when reason and charity may resume their sway.”

Politically correct progressives, it seems, are in a cultural jihad with his ghost. A modern-day McCarthyism-style fervor to annihilate the famous figures populating their own Confederate history. It's analogous to a real-life “Fahrenheit 451”: tearing down statues of their forebearers instead of burning books. However, the goal to eradicate threatening ideas—both sets of objects represent—is identical. Unfortunately, Democrats' demented dogma has recently shuttered the windows of a national religious landmark.

Last Tuesday evening—after a two-year debate—the cathedral's governing board voted to remove two 4-by-6 foot stain glass panels. Related to church windows, what do parishioners typically see other than emanations of color and beautiful designs? Still, the fact that they depict two important Confederate generals, Lee and Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, now means they must be purged. Per Church officials, this sudden “eyesore” is “a barrier to our important work on racial justice and racial reconciliation.” A convenient excuse of the self-righteous to perpetrate retribution against demonized, and defenseless, targets. Flawed as they may have been, weren't these American soldiers also Christians? Thus, to utilize Scripture as a guide:

“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother [Confederates] who sins against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy-seven times!'” (Matthew 18:21-2)

As their religion's prime directive is forgiveness, why have these church elders sown dissension instead?

Hence, their brief deconsecration service that followed Thursday was a farce. A hypocritical effort to mask scorn via a “respectful” ritual toward disparaged subjects. Yet, liberals' self-serving perpetuation of an ancient grievance has no relevance, for example, to Lee's post-war actions. In this matter, their ire is a bizarre and destructive (often violently expressed) mind-set. Thus, as the acknowledged face of the Confederacy, Gen. Lee is a scapegoat for Democrats' own existential crisis of conscience. In short, they use his image to inflame today's political landscape. Their groundless accusations—as their unfounded rage—have no bearing on him, then as now.

Neither do their baseless claims of his influence have any connection to race relations in America of 2017. Our widespread celebration of diversity—as demonstrated by commonplace interracial marriage—is a case in point. Those needing a more blatant example of societal evolution need only consider the last occupant of the Oval Office. What greater honor can be bestowed upon anyone to represent all Americans then electing that person to helm the country?

Speaking of obvious truths, the Cathedral Chapter's unfortunate determination is actually an insult to the gift, and the legacy, of the completely blameless United Daughters of the Confederacy (and a private benefactor). After all, they raised the funds and donated the windows to the church. Thus, for 64 years the Daughters' intention was to honor the past, not justify its mistakes. This fact was even acknowledged by religious progressive Gary Hall, the former dean of the cathedral, who stated in 2015 that the prominently placed panels signified a desire to “foster reconciliation between parts of the nation that had been divided by the Civil War.” Historically, that means the Confederacy’s descendants commissioned the windows as an act of contrition: to promote unity, and healing. In other words, precisely what Lee did during the Reconstruction Era. Therefore, what reflective message could be more appropriate in a hallowed space than that one? To the well-informed, removing the windows only abets ignorance of the past. Quite an “enlightened” decision in this topsy-turvy political climate!

Tragically such visual beauty has also become a Rorschach test for polarizing partisans in the MSM. For example, The Washington Post's Colbert King misconstrued:

“The solemn truth was inescapable: The windows honored a system that rested upon black subjugation and white supremacy. They were a stain on the cathedral and were, as the chapter’s removal resolution stated, 'inconsistent with [the church’s] current mission to serve as a house of prayer for all people'. ... They had to go.”

Interestingly, this columnist's spouse, Gwen, is a member of the Cathedral Chapter. She voted to strip the nave of these “offensive” artifacts, too. Given the Kings' collective advocacy of vanquishing the National Cathedral's “silent symbols of a bloody war fought to uphold a traitorous Confederacy rooted in slavery,” perhaps they should complain about the open display of crucifixes next? After all, didn't the Ku Klux Klan (read: the militant arm of Southern Democrats) habitually burn crosses to terrorize minorities? Aren't these archaic instruments of Roman torture as off-putting to the delicate sensibilities of their flock as their newly condemned windows?

As followers of Christ, what would Jesus do?

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

What Triggers the Mob

How can the removal (or destruction) of any external object purge the human psyche of a disgraceful mind-set like racism?

Recall that all history is a series of discrete events locked in time: unchanging and unalterable. Therefore, today's revisionist fervor directed at America's antebellum past is misguided. Like amber dating back 100 million years to the mid-Cretaceous period (proving Tyrannosaurus rex had bird-like feathers), would it be right to destroy a specimen simply because the subject could evoke some existential human dread of prehistoric monsters? An absurd example that makes an important point: Confederate statuary, like dinosaur bones, only demonstrate the existence of a thing. Yet, meaning is inherently fluid: applied in the now by the living.

To eradicate historical artifacts in the name of progressives' “progress” is jackbooted fascism. It's the real-life manifestation of George Orwell's “1984”. Specifically, Big Brother is the identity politics-obsessed Democratic Party. Their creature is the violently inflamed street mob: faceless, mindless and everywhere. One prominent example is Black Lives Matter who on August 29, 2015 publicly proclaimed, “Pigs [cops] in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” On CNN, this lawless group was praised by Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson who said Wednesday, “The people that we claim, Black Lives Matter, the antifa movement, and so on, are interested in preserving the fabric of America.” So, exactly how does a cop-killing advocacy group “preserve” American society?

Democrats demonize today’s law enforcement officers—simply for wearing a uniform (and perhaps carrying a gun)—as indiscriminately as long-dead American icons. Telling examples are found in the murder capital of Chicago. Instead of spotlighting the skyrocketing death toll, the aggrieved and clueless like Bishop James Dukes, pastor of the Liberation Christian Center, has asked the mayor's office to remove monuments to two U.S. presidents including Founding Father George Washington. Even worse, a Chicagoean malcontent has vandalized a giant bust of Abraham Lincoln—our slavery-abolishing 16^th president—with a flammable spray. Thusly, President Trump's Thursday Tweet is prescient, “Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson—who's next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish.” What's foolish is in the name of “tolerance”, the intolerant constantly attack the undeserving, then as now, as “racist” bogeymen.

Anti-American anarchists populating the left thrive by causing chaos and disruption. Their whack-a-mole strategy is based on a fundamental flaw of reasoning: that the inanimate—especially what they label triggering symbols—can be blamed for flawed human choices that constantly mold society. Hence, their fascist impulses to prohibit what's objectionable only to them: guns, cops or Confederate figures. Yet, none of these groupings automatically cause problems. In truth, almost anything physical can be weaponized. For instance, would Virginia be wise to ban all cars because one crazed individual, James Alex Fields Jr., 20, killed Charlottesville resident Heather Heyer, 32, with his silver Dodge Challenger?

What plagues our culture are Democrats who exploit various tragedies for their own divisive political ends. They don't see the evolved reality of the melting pot that is 21^st century America. For them and their followers, individual responsibility is nonexistent. Instead, liberals promote victimhood narratives—eagerly embraced by those easily manipulated by fictional offenses—to incite actual violence.

Simply as a record, history deserves to be protected because all men are fallible, and wrongdoers exist in every age. The mistake our generation is making is focusing on them instead of their hateful modern-day equivalents.

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

Exorcising Democrats' Confederate History

Why are progressives clamoring to remove many of America's mementos dedicated to the Old South? Generations later, can remnants of Civil War Democrats cause active psychological “harm”? That seems highly unlikely. However, what's real is the targeting of Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart and Jefferson Davis. If that's the liberal standard for destroying their icons, who has caused more recent and lasting damage than Barack Obama? Therefore, isn't it logical for them to purge both ancient root and modern branch? Yet, fear not, President Obama's safe from their revisionist historical pruning. It's only his antebellum counterparts who find themselves on the chopping block.

Let's pull some contextual threads from this spidery progressive web, shall we? Reportedly, Democrats in Alexandria, Virginia want to rename a main thoroughfare, Jefferson Davis Highway. Also, they want to move a statue on State Route 400 of a Confederate soldier, “Appomattox,” to the comparable obscurity of a nearby museum. Erected in 1889, is the presence of this unarmed Southerner—like the street named for the Confederacy's president—suddenly noxious to the average commuter? Do they trigger so much daily trauma that they're right to nix them? Not to be outshone, Fairfax County is embroiled in a two-year debate to strip Confederate General Stuart's name from one of its most racially diverse high schools. Their dragnet is not local however, it's a monstrosity cast widely across state lines as far as Louisiana.

As the left's revisionist hysteria is never satisfied, Stuart's famous contemporary General Robert E. Lee is targeted in both places. Atop a pillar since 1884, his towering figure was removed from its New Orleans perch last Friday after 133 years. (His was not the first to fall. On May 11th, the powers that be removed a statue from the Jefferson Davis memorial there. On Saturday, a display—the word “LOVE”—was found on its vacated platform.) Only time will tell if his Virginia likeness—mutely astride his majestic horse in Lee Park since 1924—will suffer the same “loving” fate. As the land was specifically donated to showcase this Southern soldier, is it right to unseat him after 93 years? What's more horrible here, destroying the vestiges of progressives' 19^th century past or the wasteful expenditure to taxpayers of $300,000 to do it?

Doesn't all history have a worthy place simply because it happened? How can eradicating the lessons that shaped our collective cultural experience ever be the “right” thing to do? Isn't the mind-set to wipe clean the landscape—of old dignitaries' names and harmless inanimate objects—really a fascist desire to ban ideas themselves? (Will these safe space liberal “do-gooders” advocate “Fahrenheit 451”-style book burning next?) Obviously, their predecessors' dual stains of slavery and segregation—never acknowledged or owned by them hereafter—are of lasting shame. Well, frankly, they should be. Hence, their current self-serving agenda to simply airbrush monuments out of existence.

To this end, their go-to narrative is one of distraction and manipulation. To the muddleheaded, the dishonest proclaim often repeated nonsense: America is “secretly racist”! In the same vein as “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” liberals have kind of a politically-motivated hysterical blindness. What of the widespread advancements since the 1950s and 1960s Civil Rights movements? A prominent trend—the “black is beautiful” paradigm shift of the '60s and '70s—doesn't matter? Heck, these naysayers don't even acknowledge the cultural significance of the former occupant of the White House! So, concrete facts of societal progression are meaningless to them. Only their deluded aim to erase transgenerational political sins.

Seriously, it's been 152 years since the end of the Civil War! Only misguided spendthrifts waste today's public funds to “purify” the past. Obviously, historical footnotes—like the name of a road or a school, or four statues—have no magical power to corrupt anything of the now. What relevance to the day-to-day life experience of Americans do they really have? Very little, if any. In fact, their only intrinsic value are as markers showing where America has been—and how truly tolerant she has become!

Despite these ridiculous assertions, racism is not infused in the bronze edifices resembling long-dead Southerners. Likewise, it's not found in the hearts of persons striving to preserve them either. Interestingly, only Democrats' self-hatred persists with the passage of time. That liberal malady is seen in their psychological projection of guilt upon the rest us whose ancestors never owned a slave. Clearly, that's a problem better suited to the analyst's couch then the political realm. (On a related note, can our country be correctly viewed as innately “sexist” as Hillary Clinton is the latest nominee of her party—and the winner of the popular vote?) All elements described above encapsulate the schizophrenic thinking pervading every level of the Democratic Party.

In truth, tangible proof of America's well-established—and ever-expanding—pattern of embracing and celebrating diversity is everywhere! What of commonplace interracial marriage or the recent legalization of gay marriage? So, is it fair to automatically demonize a Republican simply for expressing a history-protecting impulse? Virginia's firebrand GOP gubernatorial hopeful Corey Stewart recently said:

“There’s all kinds of things that offend people, but that [removal] doesn’t make it right. That doesn’t make it so [fix the past]. This [the statue of Robert E. Lee] is a part of our history; if you don’t like our history, that’s too damn bad.”

Well, precisely. What's crystal clear is the Democrats have a cringeworthy history. Understandably, they're desperate to annihilate any reminders of the irrefutable and indefensible. Chief among them is their sole ownership of two infamous institutions: Virginia's antebellum past (read: slaveholding) and white supremacy (read: creating the Ku Klux Klan). As Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union, his party has a duty to safeguard the other side's artifacts for posterity. Without them as silent witnesses, falsely tarring conservatives with their own ongoing record of misdeeds becomes easy. If successful, all that would remain is a nebulous war of words for progressives to dominate. As George Santayana wisely advised: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Ironically, destroying America's Confederate past also diminishes her freedom-loving future.

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

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

Ending Obama “Cult” Pains Michelle

“Anyone who puts faith in a politician to make his or her life better is worshipping a false god. ... Politicians promote faith in themselves [read: Barack and Michelle Obama] because it helps their careers and feeds their egos.” – Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist in The Washington Times

The only wonderful thing about a false god is its inevitable demise. To progressive ideologues like coddled Michelle, the repudiations of her husband—political shellackings of 2010, 2014 and today—are deeply painful. After all, the Obamas are profoundly narcissistic and ego-driven. In 2014, that's why Mr. Obama said:

“I’m not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These [read: my] policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.”

For Michelle's part, five-star White House perks and Air Force One jet-setting aren't enough. She wanted to be paid to be first lady. Indeed, the Obama presidency is defined by self-aggrandizement. What else explains Mr. Obama's habit of governing while golfing or his perpetual Hawaiian vacations? (Aptly, Michelle flew to Hawaii after her parting Oprah interview.) How can the Obamas take for granted the extraordinary faith gifted anyone residing in the White House? No one is entitled to sour grapes for being entrusted with such a lofty position. To helm the greatest nation on earth is a privilege—never an entitlement. It's a disgrace to behave otherwise.

Unlike the clueless and classless Obamas, President-elect Donald Trump “gets it.” That's the real reason behind his 'Thank You' tour. By contrast, neither carping Obama can muster even a few words of gratitude. A modern-day Marie Antoinette, entitled Michelle has happily existed in the echo chamber that is the White House bubble (same as her husband). What other couple has lived so publicly as careless millionaires, impervious to the suffering of their fellow citizens?

The Obama presidency is an anti-American exercise in fascism, the superficiality of identity politics and the cult of personality. The Obamas never even acknowledged harsh domestic or international realities. What of eight years of killing zones in inner cities like Chicago? What of Barack Obama's virtual doubling of America's national debt? What of the escalating worldwide scourge that is his unnamed radical Islamic terrorism? To them, none of these actual problems matter. They hold the ego-centered belief—a collective political delusion—that they are the “real victims”. See this same fiction paralleled by Michelle's griping and Hillary's election meltdown. As Hillary Clinton promised an “Obama third term,” how her failure is a resounding rejection of the Obama legacy. Country be damned: everything is about their marginalized little elitist clique.

Ah, the unceasing agony—to be at the mercy of a Republican Congress and The Donald's pen stroke! In this, America has been blessed with renewed hope and a new beginning. Michelle Obama's self-absorbed pessimism—a serious character flaw—provides the correct context for her out of touch reaction:

“We are feeling what not having hope feels like.”

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

“Hamilton's” Burr “Assassinates” Pence

“The fundamental source of all your [read: progressive Democrats] errors, sophisms and false reasonings is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges [read: God-granted rights and freedoms]. You would be convinced, that ... civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice.” – Alexander Hamilton on February 23, 1775

What is it with the unfortunate intersection of troublemaking thespians and political leaders in American theaters? In this case I refer not to Lincoln and Booth, but to Vice President-elect Pence and “Hamilton assassin,” lead actor, Brandon Victor Dixon.

Recall, Mr. Pence is newly elected, not yet in office. He's paid a small fortune for Broadway theater tickets. He's out for the evening with family for a few well-deserved hours of entertainment. It's bad enough that the partisan New York crowd ungraciously boos him. Given this polarized environment, was it really appropriate for Dixon (playing the ironically “murderous” Vice President Aaron Burr) to add editorial heat by publicly calling Pence out? Now imagine if President-elect Barack Obama was in Mike Pence's “Hamilton” hot seat.

By invoking the heightened emotions of a contentious election, Dixon targeted the innocent man present with damning words: disrespecting Pence, Trump and the voters. Despite his lofty rhetoric, this actor's clearly manipulative behavior was unmistakably designed to incite political tensions:

“We, sir, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us: our planet, our children, our parents or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.”

How is this not metaphorical character assassination? One somehow doubts Dixon would have slandered Barack Obama as he unkindly insulted Pence. If that did happen, identity politics obsessed liberals would be shrieking from the rooftops how close-minded (even racist!) the spokesman of the “Hamilton” cast is. (How dare they not give Obama the benefit of the doubt!) While everyone is entitled to an opinion, another American value is giving the new fellow a fair shake. Thus, Dixon's premature and wholesale condemnation is the only “alarming” element here. It's fascism in full flower.

For the record, arrogantly smug Obama said in January of 2009: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” (Contrast that to Trump who tellingly said in his victory speech: “we won.”) The fact is that Barack Obama has been the most divisive president of the modern age. With overreaching executive orders he habitually ignored Congress and the rule of law, never considered the conservative perspective (populating the vast spaces between coastal urban centers), and never even pretended to represent the Silent Majority who has tapped Donald Trump to be the 45th U.S. president.

Apparently the “Hamilton” company is corrupted by progressive ideologues in desperate need of a crash course in Founding Father philosophy. They pay lip service to the value of “diversity” while rankly embodying intolerance. Today, poor Alexander Hamilton turns restlessly in his grave! His life is portrayed by a troupe of ignorant pretenders; led by “assassinating” actor Brandon Victor Dixon: the epitome of a rabble-rousing poser.

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

Using Welfare to Buy Elections

“The only time you even see the people is when you look down to see what it is you're stepping on.” — Bonnie Bedelia as Holly McClane in “Die Hard 2” (1990)

As originally conceived in 1964 with LBJ's “Great Society,” welfare programs were promoted as a temporary helping hand to give the downtrodden a leg up. Today, this blatant economic redistribution (read: War on Poverty) has metastasized in a multi-generational government dependence scheme. In essence, entitlement programs such as food stamps are de facto bribes directed mostly at minority groups loyal to Democrats. For progressives it's a simple numbers game: garnering enough votes to keep themselves perpetually in high elective office.

Recall that the bottom 60% of the population pays only 2% of federal income taxes. Therefore, this static underclass has virtually no economic skin the game as they are promised—in exchange for their ballots—more and more “free stuff” paid for by someone else. Vanquished Bolshevik Bernie Sanders' fantasy of “free” public college funded by the much demonized One Percenters comes to mind. In other words, why work when one makes almost as much by not working?

Cynical liberals like Nancy Pelosi (and her fellow travelers like Hillary Clinton) love welfare. To elitist dolts like her, food stamps and unemployment insurance payouts are laughably among “best ways to stimulate the economy.” This fascist millionaire of the political ruling class knows all too well: if you can influence an individual's stomach you can control their vote.

Despite an escalating $19.4 national debt, the cost of welfare is now well over $1 trillion dollars per year. In fact, the use of food stamps has become so common they are the go-to currency in many inner cities. At present, 45 million Americans depend on taxpayers to put food on their tables. Since taking office, Mr. Obama has added 5 million to that number, and 10 million more to the Medicaid rolls.

How is all of this government largesse “paid” for? By further raising economy-killing taxes as well as the debt ceiling (by borrowing, at interest, more money from Communist regimes like China). Hence, the reasons for the widespread economic malaise of the Obama years are laid bare. A booming welfare state and outsourced jobs (due to high corporate taxes and draconian regulations) have resulted in almost eight years of a largely stagnant economy—and 93 million able bodied Americans out of the workforce.

The cherry on the pie of this fiscal wasteland is the surprising revelation that illegal alien recipients are paid approximately $1,000 dollars more in U.S. welfare benefits than American citizens. So, despite this clear economic drain, the unchecked criminality (such as the murder of innocents like American Kate Steinle), the violent drug trade and the ever present danger of radical Islamic terrorism, Hillary Clinton supports an open border policy. Why? Beyond an unquenchable lust for power, the amoral Clintons are all about self-interest via political calculations. To this end, her hope of future amnesty for this underclass of foreign invaders (border jumping squatters and those illegally overstaying visas) forms yet another cultivated voting bloc for her ilk to steal elections by diluting the will of the American people.

Related to welfare as a political tool of manipulation, we've come full circle back to the politician who started it all, Lyndon B. Johnson. At the time, this first modern progressive president said privately, “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!” Like LBJ, Hillary Clinton is a disdainful creature (read: Server-gate) who counts on the duped and the poor (whom she cares nothing for) to realize her own longstanding presidential ambitions.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Millennials: Pokemon 'Dopeyman'

The soft bigotry of low expectations now plagues America's political landscape. Disconnected millennials—likely rabid former socialist Bernie Sanders supporters, now tepid Hillary ones—play the latest video game fad, the Pokemon Go app. To the uninitiated, the players walk outdoors in the real world hunting virtual creatures such as Golems, Porygons and Dragonites. (These characters appear on the screens of their smartphones.) So utterly distracted are they, one can literally walk into walls or oncoming traffic. So, actual risk to life and limb is worth playing a nostalgic video game?

What a perfect analogy to their abject cluelessness. As an example, politically speaking, they have no concept of the danger of electing yet another Clinton president. Why else would they support the ruling class of liberal fascists masquerading as lying Democrats? Unfortunately, they have been weaned in a coddled culture that awards everyone a school trophy for simply “showing up.” That's high school; however, college is no better. No matter the subject matter or type of degree, every parchment now issued is a BS in liberal indoctrination (many with pricey 6-figure prize tags). Therefore, when millennials get into a pressurized scenario, like a job (assuming they can find one at all with 93 million unemployed) they are utterly unprepared to cope.

Speaking of another petulant person completely out of his depth is Barack Obama. Straight out of a bright and shiny millennial fantasy, he just “showed up” (on the political scene) and was foolishly handed the U.S. presidency, not once but twice. What of note had BHO accomplished as junior senator from Illinois? Nothing. The same was true less then a year in office when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, Mr. Obama's ongoing, bowing and scraping apology tour to leftist dictators the world over hardly equates to the Nobel's “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy between peoples.” The reality remains that during his failed tenure radical Islamic terrorism has spread like pernicious brush fires all over the globe. America has been a non-entity overseas due to Mr. Obama's “leadership from behind.” As a pro-Islamic ideologue with a murky upbringing, his administration's feckless, surrendering “negotiation” will likely lead directly to a soon-to-be nuclear Iran. And as this greatest state sponsor of terrorism inevitably grows in influence so too will an ever-flourishing ISIS. Like fist in glove, the two go together.

What greatly assisted Mr. Obama's reelection was the artificial muzzle of political correctness. People were afraid (even to themselves) of being labeled “racist” for not voting for America's first black president, so they did. Yet, in retrospect, Barack Obama's hope has been non-existent; his nebulous change has been radically un-American. Specifically, for 7 ½ years he has demonized police as “stupid” and/or “racist.” Hence, Black Lives Matter anarchy. They cause and/or inspire the burning cities of Baltimore, MD and Ferguson, MO. And the latest tragic domino effect: commonplace assassinations of police in New York, and most recently in Dallas.

Who else but he has so politically polarized our society (with the water-carrying MSM distracting from his multitude of failures)? Like a noxious witches' brew, his media minions have dutifully stirred the simmering pot of racial tensions repeatedly to boil. Now, Obama suddenly pivots at a memorial service in Dallas, suddenly expressing “pride” in murdered police? (This flip-flopping hypocrisy mirrors his “evolution” on gay marriage. That, too, was a naked political calculation: designed not to promote equal rights, only to shore up a lost campaign funding source.) His Johnny-come-lately pro-cop pronouncement is no different. Why else would he say “how inadequate my own words have been” and “we're not as divided as we seem”? This is the same self-serving lip service that has defined his presidency. A feeble, last minute legacy-preserving attempt to change the tone of his last 6 months in office. One can easily imagine the colorful language MLK would have for this charlatan.

In the final analysis, Barack Obama is as happily oblivious as millennials' playing Pokemon Go. As history has already demonstrated, he is completely out of touch with the world as it is—and heedless to its dangers. Yet, the President and his family have nothing to worry about. Via one of Mr. Obama's executive orders, lifelong Secret Service protection has already been arranged. On the other hand, game-playing millennials—tracked and cornered like sheep by criminals—won't be so safe. Pokemon's apt and ironic catchphrase: “Gotta catch 'em all!”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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