Primary Upset Shows Red Innards

The cannibalization of Democrats—now philosophically interchangeable with Bernie Sanders-style socialism—is fascinating (and deeply disturbing) to see.  What else explains last week's primary defeat of establishment candidate Rep. Joseph Crowley?  Shockingly, the fourth most powerful Democrat in Congress—a 10-term incumbent—pink-slipped by the voters of NY-14.  In Mr. Crowley's former slot now stands a genuine pinko: 28-year-old political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ah, à la Obama, another fresh-faced progressive spinning the old yarn of collectivism.  On NBC's “Meet the Press” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez mirrored the former “hope and change” president by stating, “I’m an educator, I’m an organizer. And I believe that what we’re really seeing is just a movement for health care, housing and education in the United States.”  Well, everyone values such things; the question is how they’re achieved.  In reality, capitalism already provides that to the most people of any economic system—with the added benefit of self-determination. 

Socialism is always based upon redistribution of government resources.  Therefore, in practice, this House nominee peddles de facto economic enslavement via perpetual government dependence.  That's not the American way.  In truth, it’s a complete abandonment of the principles that defined their party under JFK.  Would President Kennedy want higher taxes, single-payer healthcare, radical criminal justice “reform” to empty prisons, and open U.S. borders (by abolishing ICE)?  Furthermore, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s claim “Democrats are a big-tent party” is as hollow as her dystopian rhetoric.  By today’s standards, JFK’s policies place him slightly left of mainstream Republicans.  On that basis, Jack would be shown the door as unceremoniously as Joseph Crowley was. 

Would the late Norman Thomas, a fellow socialist, Presbyterian preacher and six-time presidential candidate, be that surprised by the unvarnished emergence of another democratic upstart?  Reverend Thomas famously prophesied that socialism would stealthily (and incrementally) arrive in America wearing the mantle of the Democratic Party.  In the modern era, it emerged with the failed campaign of Bernie Sanders in 2015.  That movement has gained a latest toehold with the unexpected victory of millennial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  The white and blue has been drained from the Democratic Party, but the red—at its metastasized heart—remains.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

The Hidden Costs of Illegals

The distinction between legal immigration and illegal migration makes all the difference in the world. At issue is the American impulse to extend freedom, counterbalanced by the undocumented aliens' desire to usurp it. Thus, to consider what liberty means to us, we must directly reference an inspirational source:

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome ...

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

– From “The New Colossus” (1883) by 19^th century American poet Emma Lazarus

Based upon the above description, is it any wonder a more famous part of this sonnet—referring to “huddled masses, yearning to breathe free”—has been inscribed on a bronze plaque in the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty?

Inscribed since 1903 upon that monument, this message conveys a uniquely American spirit. It's defined by humanitarianism and economic generosity. In cultural terms, it has translated into our “melting pot” philosophy: a warm embrace of foreign-born citizens. Speaking of the statuesque and the great is our own current first lady, Melania Trump, born in Slovenia (formerly Yugoslavia). For any newcomer, who's a better symbol of the American Dream than she?

To that end, the U.S. permits more legal immigration than any other country in the world. That accounts for about 20% of the world’s migrants. For context, based upon available 2015 figures from Pew Research Center, some 43.2 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country. Add to that 277.7 born on native soil, and we arrive at 320.9 million: America's populace for that year. Given that the world's population then was approximately 7.2 billion, that means there's a 1 in 26 chance of being born stateside. Hence, not really good odds for the inhabitants of economically challenged Third World countries!

Yet, Liberty's “golden door” was never intended to be an open border policy. As a metaphor, that would be like throwing one's home open, at any time, to perfect strangers—allowing said “guests” to permanently reside—and expecting positive results. Compounding that disturbing dynamic is the general caliber of these criminal interlopers. For starters, they have already violated U.S. immigration law. Also working against them are cultural barriers, usually a lack education and specifically, English language proficiency. Even worse is an inability to find gainful employment legitimately. Under these obviously adverse conditions, is it any surprise that so many turn to crime to survive?

A recent government count of incarcerated aliens bears this out. As of June 24, 22% of the U.S. prison population, or 42,000, are in federal prisons. Per the Prisons Bureau, the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates (exemplified by Fiscal Year 2015) was $31,977.65. (Per inmate, per day, that's $87.61—or roughly 1.3 billion dollars per year!) Recall, per Social Security, the typical employee made $48,098.63 that year. So, astonishingly, housing a criminal cost 66% of what that average U.S. employee earned! And that is just the tip of the fiscal morass perpetrated by this shadowy underclass of 11 million squatters.

Globally, per the Washington Times, a new study from the Center for Immigration Studies finds they will drain nearly $750 billion from U.S. taxpayers over their lifetimes. That's six times the cost of mass deportations. However, the cost is more than strictly economic. As these aliens predominantly congregate in failed Democratic-controlled urban centers, like Chicago, San Francisco and Portland, is it any surprise that these sanctuary cities are hotbeds for criminality inflicted against the law-abiding? Tragically, that's seen most graphically in a one-man crime wave that is Mexican Sergio Jose Martinez, 31. Reportedly deported 20 times for progressively more serious offenses ranging from drug possession and burglary to auto theft and hit and run, he's currently accused of raping a 65-year-old Oregon woman as well as the same-day attempted kidnapping of a 24-year-old female while wielding a knife. If released again, will he cause the death of some innocent like Kate Steinle?

Meanwhile, House Bill 3464—a bill to expand Oregon's sanctuary status with no Republican support—sits on beleaguered Governor Kate Brown's desk. Specifically, the measure prohibits state and local agencies from sharing information with federal authorities, or inquiring about a person's immigration status except as required by state and federal law. The high profile brutalization of one, and the threat of bodily harm to another, has galvanized state Republicans. Senate Minority Whip Dennis Linthicum said:

“[Sanctuary states] excuse lawless behavior and perpetuate criminal, rape and gang cultures. Every Oregonian should be outraged to see criminals let loose into the streets. Career Democrats shouldn’t sacrifice Oregonians’ safety on the altar of their extreme political agenda.”

Unfortunately, as state Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and Governor Brown spearheaded this harebrained effort, it seems highly unlikely that mounting political pressure will suddenly compel a veto. Therefore, how are these Democratic leaders not indirectly complicit in Martinez's crimes? In any case, shouldn't public safety always trump their politically correct social engineering? Indeed, to be effective, our democracy requires acclimation to agreed upon laws, a common language, and basic standards of civilized conduct.

At every level of community—from the local to the state to the national—the United States is individually and collectively owned, and financed, by her citizens. Would progressive politicians host and subsidize the uninvited and the violent in their personal dwellings? Therefore, how is it not insanity for them to advocate free rein for the unvetted and the lawbreaking within America's homeland? In any case, the waste of U.S. resources to mitigate the fallout from Democrats' dytopian schemes is appalling. Still, at least that exorbitant expense is measurable. What isn't is the domino effect of illegals' criminality: the invisible human cost exacted by victims' anguish and suffering. That price—which liberals completely ignore—is incalculable.

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

Why Democrats Love Illegals

Twice failed candidate Hillary Clinton received more votes than any unsuccessful presidential candidate in U.S. history. In the 2016 election, she garnered 2.9 million more votes than then President-elect Donald Trump. Her popular vote tally was 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%.), or a 2.1% differential. Back on November 27, 2016, Trump tweeted, “In addition to winning the Electoral College [304 to 227, needing 270] in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” On balance, that's likely true.

How many of Hillary's ballots were cast illegitimately? Outrageously, that's still unknown. Yet today, the jaw-dropping actuality can be reasonably inferred. To that end, Just Facts, a New Jersey research organization and conservative/libertarian think tank, suggests that millions of illegals vote in U.S. elections. Specifically, their analysis of 2008 data from an extensive Harvard/You Gov survey indicates that 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered to vote—and 594,000 to 5.7 million did so. These figures support a previous Old Dominion University study in which professors and co-authors Jesse Richman and David Earnest stated that as many as 2.8 million interlopers voted. Why is this obvious problem—a fundamental threat diluting the people's voice in elections—“nonexistent” for Democrats?

There's a mutually beneficial relationship between progressives and criminal squatters who vote. Via shared governmental largesse—as examples, direct welfare and/or indirect free public school education—the latter achieve a better standard of living than their point of origin. Meanwhile, statistically, Democrats have a built-in voting bloc despite their odious, out of step policies. Why else constantly encourage, and defend, this shadowy influx of 11 million illegal lawbreakers? Likewise, given the common occurrence of terrorism around the globe, why similarly promote unchecked migration, lax law enforcement and borderlessness?

The only logical reason is personal payoffs for the elite ruling class. Politically, enough warm bodies voting to keep limousine liberals perpetually in office. After all, their ilk doesn't experience the general chaos of street violence in Democrat-run sanctuary cities. Moreover, they don't care about exploding deficit spending; and they don't cover the cost of catnip benefits drawing persons like a magnet from impoverished southern countries.

Why does any of that matter to uber-rich progressives epitomized by “biggest loser” Hillary? Besides votes, don't they also need low-wage workers to do the menial jobs in their gated, safe palatial estates?

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

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

Puppet Hillary's Blame Game

During the 3^rd presidential debate Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton laughably claimed that self-made billionaire, Donald Trump—a political outsider—was a puppet rather than herself:

“He'd [Vladimir Putin] rather have a puppet as president of the United States.”

“No puppet, no puppet… You're the puppet,” was Mr. Trump's honest reply.

Excuse me, but which scandal embroiled candidate made a dirty U.S. uranium deal with Russia? Which same one blatantly broke American law and fostered potential espionage? As with everything two-faced Hillary says the truth opposes her own words and deeds. Via Charity-gate, Mrs. Clinton did the former; with Server-gate she did the latter. Thus, at the debate she falsely accused Trump of her own crimes. This behavior is classical psychological projection: her own deep-seeded guilt blamed on her innocent political opponent.

Beyond a worthless apology, Hillary's blame game never includes herself. Mr. Trump's call to Russia to release her illegally destroyed emails (if they have them) isn't espionage. He has nothing to do with what was left unprotected or has likely been stolen. First, wasn't it Hillary who intentionally had unauthorized, private servers set up in the first place as Secretary of State? Second, wasn't it Mrs. Clinton responsibility to follow the law forbidding such extraneous storage of classified information? Third, since she knowingly ignored the rules, doesn't she own the consequences of hackers and potentially “interfering” foreign governments in next month's election?

Hillary has aided Russia, the foreign government she now publicly demonizes. In reality if anyone is a hypothetical puppet of Putin's, it's Hillary Clinton not Donald Trump. Specifically, her State Department approved the Uranium One deal which insanely ceded Russia control of 20% of American produced uranium for a fat donation to her pay for play sham of a charity, the Clinton Foundation. (That's the highly prized “yellow cake” used in nuclear weapons.) What's to stop the Kremlin from sharing the extra supply with their Middle East allies, the nuclear ambitious Iranian Imams? You know, the same bearded fellows who finessed a toothless, Obama-approved nuclear deal that virtually guarantees them the bomb within the next decade? The answer to all of the above is nothing at all.

Moreover, if the Soviets do have her destroyed emails, Mr. Putin has a treasure trove of top secret material with which to blackmail the normally paranoid and self-obsessed Hillary. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton would waste critical years in office (vital to the continued solvency of America) looking only to save her own skin. Indeed, the next president must contend with the escalating, unsustainable 19.7T debt. (That sounds like a wheelhouse challenge to a businessman, and job creator, like Donald Trump.)

Yet, Hillary's not up to that, or anything constructive. Crooked Hillary will be embroiled in ever worsening scandals, and future Nixon style cover-ups. Just like her impeached hubby Bill, she'll remain in an endless cycle of political damage control. Recall, her already well-established track record of incompetence and lawlessness. While the country seizes in a hellish Clinton Administration death spiral, how would this divisive rabble-rouser lead—except disastrously—over a social and economic cliff?

It doesn't take a dummy to know who's better for America's future. If ventriloquists were Wall Street bankers, speechifying “Hillary six figures” would be their open borders, amnesty-promising marionette. Brassy Donald Trump should not be confused with any of that. Unlike the shifty one percenters who finance Mrs. Clinton's corrupt candidacy, Donald Trump's a captain of industry who can't be bought. He already has all of the fame, wealth and power anyone could want. America needs his tell-it-like-it-is 'can-do' optimism—not an elitist figurehead for foreign and domestic special interest groups, and corporate masters.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Marco Rubio: WikiLeaks Pipsqueak

“These leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it. Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today, it is the Democrats. Tomorrow, it could be us.” – Marco Rubio to ABC News on October 19, 2016

So the issue for good ole boy Marco isn't the Democrats' blatant political corruption (that any honest person would condemn), it's that Julian Assange via WikiLeaks had the nerve to disclose it? Given Mr. Rubio's elitist attitude, is it any wonder why average Americans are as disgusted with do-nothing establishment Republicans as they are with lawless progressives? In the final analysis, besides outsider Trump, what's the difference?

Of course, per habitual liar Hillary, her unauthorized servers—both illegal, and likely hacked—aren't a problem. Yet, what did the stolen DNC emails show? Surprise, surprise: more of two-faced Hillary Clinton's double-dealing. Specifically, her wink and smile extortion racket of the one percenters. Six figure speeches to Wall Street banks privately pledging a gangster's style protection and open borders while publicly demonizing both. Thus, she cashes in on their financial support while simultaneously claiming to be down-with-the-struggle like regular folks? Not a chance.

Another revelation of the hacked emails is widespread DNC election tampering. A coordinated effort by Mrs. Clinton's campaign—and disgraced, fired DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (reemployed by Hillary directly) —to deny surging Socialist Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination. So, why is pea-brained Mr. Rubio's first instinct (and primary concern) sitting on his “little hands” related to Democrats' dirty political laundry? (Indeed, if the situation was reversed, they'd chop at the bit to use such leaked information as political currency against the GOP.) Therefore, in psychological terms what is Mr. Rubio afraid of? Given the Halloween season, what deep-seeded skeletons are hiding undisturbed in his closet?

Here's the key to this weasel: “Tomorrow, it could be us.” Well, RINO Rubio, if you are so similarly self-serving and immoral as Democrats why should your ilk hold the reigns of power? The Florida senator breezily claims there is no election fraud in his state, but what if he is the fraud? Apparently, the learned senator is unfamiliar with a 2012 study by the Pew Center on the States entitled “Inaccurate, Costly and Inefficient: Evidence that American Voter Registration Systems Needs an Upgrade.” That report indicates:

• Approximately 24 million voter registrations, or 1 in 8, are invalid or substantially inaccurate
• Some 2.75 million people are registered to vote in multiple states
• 1.8 million dead people are still on the active voter rolls

So beyond the pivotal electoral outcome of the sunshine state what of the other 49, Mr. Rubio? What of a more recent survey that indicates that 13% of illegals confess to fraudulent voting? And what of Democratic-run cities like historically crooked Chicago where the dead unfailingly vote for Democrats every four years?

How can Marco Rubio claim closed-eyed ignorance? Precisely as Obama and Hillary, he, as they, sees not a smidgen of corruption. Shockingly, this fop even parrots Mrs. Clinton's laughable narrative that “foreign governments” are interfering in the presidential election. The actual problem remains infinitely closer to home. “Little Marco” need only borrow a mirror from his progressive friends on Capitol Hill.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Two-Faced Hillary's Scarlet “C”

“No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.” – from The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, featured in “Primal Fear” (1996)

“I'm kind of far removed from the struggles of the middle class because [of] the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy. And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged.” – Hillary Clinton's remarks to Goldman-Black Rock, February 4, 2014

The game has been rigged, of course, by Hillary Clinton. If she's anything, she's the anti-Lincoln: an amoral, big government fascist willing to tear America apart to assure her own presidential ambitions. Released WikiLeaks's emails have revealed that Mrs. Clinton is perfectly fine with “both a public and a private position” related to, for example, fat-cat bankers on Wall Street. During the second presidential town hall debate, a questioner wanted to know whether “it is okay for politicians to be two-faced.” Shamelessly, “Big Sister” Hillary invoked Honest Abe to mitigate her own clear criminality (read: Server-gate). Would Abraham Lincoln have traded influence for personal enrichment as she has: $238 million in “personal earnings,” and a 2 billion dollar slush fund from their “charitable” foundation? The answer is never. Mr. Lincoln, unlike the grifters Clinton, was not for sale.

As past is prologue, power-obsessed, money-grubbing Hillary stands for nothing, save herself. Indeed, she is utterly bereft of any benevolent principles whatsoever. Despite an avalanche of damning evidence, what will it take for the American electorate to wake up to the reality of this amoral, two-faced creature? Specifically, in a bid to secure Bernie Sanders voters for herself, she reversed her position (from pro to against) on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Likewise, during the sham of a Democratic primary she came out against her “gold standard” Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which she had previously supported as Secretary of State.

The Hillary rabbit hole goes deeper, and gets worse. Per WikiLeaks, Mrs. Clinton does want open trade and open borders. In a private speech to Brazil bank Banco Itau in 2013, she reportedly said:

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

Given the ever-present threat of radical Islamic terrorism—and the underclass of illegal aliens bring all manners of their violence and problems with them—who but insane Democrats want unsecured borders?

They don't care one whit for displaced migrants or legal immigration. They want new bodies to populate their poverty plantation. A permanent, illegal underclass fits Hillary's personal ends nicely. Likewise, Bernie Sanders's economic fantasy of free college education for millennial votes. These are simply riffs from LBJ's political playbook. He established his good-sounding public sham, his so-called “War on Poverty.” To this day, politicians have wasted 22 trillion, but the poverty rate has not improved since the policy was announced in 1964. Privately, LBJ admitted his actual agenda: “I’ll Have Those N*ggers Voting Democrat For The Next 200 Years!” The overarching political strategy here is identical: pack the country with government-dependent Democratic voters to keep progressives in power in perpetuity.

Unfortunately, the re-election of failed, scandal-prone Barack Obama in 2012 conclusively demonstrated that anything is possible in American politics. All one needs is a sycophantic MSM to hammer a propagandist narrative. In Mrs. Clinton's case on offer is an empty resume—a track record of lies, corruption and failure—and the triviality of her gender. It's absolutely unacceptable for any presidential candidate to wear one face in public and another in private. Even Hillary's campaign chairman John Podesta acknowledged that she often “says things that are untrue.” More to the point, the late New York Times columnist William Safire called Mrs. Clinton “a congenital liar” decades ago. Recall that the purpose of any U.S. president is to follow the Constitution—and represent the will and best interests of the American people. Every lie, every evasion, every lawbreaking scandal is the fallout from Hillary's elitist arrogance and her self-centered political calculations.  

WikiLeaks has also disclosed that Mr. Podesta wrote: “I know she [Hillary] has begun to hate everyday Americans.” The feeling is mutual in many clear-thinking quarters of the country. They would certainly forgive shamed Hester Prynne her adultery, but not deplorable Hillary; a scot-free con who proudly wears her corruption like a Scarlet C.

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

Hillary Voters: the Criminal, the Dead, the Illegal

Democratic political operative and Clinton fundraising bagman Terry McAuliffe didn’t hold a job as dog catcher before becoming Virginia’s current governor. Via an overreaching Obama style executive order, he tried to automatically restore the votes of the violent and non-violent alike. (The court stuck down Mr. McAuliffe's imperial edict, but the task can still be accomplished over time through a piecemeal, rubber-stamping process of 206,000 felons.)

Naturally, the MSM has spun blatant election stealing from law-abiding citizens as restoring a civil right to “disenfranchised” minorities (who by a complete coincidence vote overwhelmingly for Democrats). Virginia's House Speaker William J. Howell put the matter succinctly, “I am not surprised by the lengths to which he [McAuliffe] is willing to go to deliver Virginia to Hillary Clinton in November.”

In the same vein, Barack Obama's support for illegal aliens (read: sanctuary cities and open U.S. borders) is a numbers game designed to dilute the people's will in favor of his highly dysfunctional political status quo. That, too, is what his even more corrupt would-be successor Hillary Clinton wants. An illegal voting bloc that will, in essence, keep manna-promising, lawless progressives like them perpetually in power.

To achieve this un-American one party dominance, liberals pretend our society is stuck in a 1963 time loop. Interestingly, anyone who understands history knows that it was southern Democrats who suppressed the black vote not Republicans. Progressives have spun an amazing fiction: that today's GOP (the party of Lincoln who freed the slaves) is trying to repress legitimate minority voting. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The reasonable expectation of an easily obtained, widely available voter ID prevents fraud. It makes dead people voting—a common occurrence in Democratic run cities (like Mr. Obama's Chicago)—really problematic. Joking about something that anyone who believes in democracy would revile, Obama said:

“You can vote all week. You can only vote once. This isn’t Chicago,” Mr. Obama said. “I’m teasing, Chicago. I’m messing with you. That was a long time ago.”

I guess the 2012 election was “a long time ago” to this president. Per the Pew Center for the States, more than 1.8 million dead were still registered to vote; and 2.5 million could vote in more than one state. Further, Barack Obama's Orwellian Justice Department is actually fighting a state's legal right to correct their voter rolls.

All of this wrongdoing amounts to spoiled, meaningless elections. America's slipped on a ruinous banana peel for the last eight years, castrated by Barack Obama.  Should our nation be further demolished with a stolen election by yet another corrupt Democrat? The Founding Fathers intended a representative democracy not a banana republic. That's what invalid ballots cast by this motley crew will guarantee.

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

Pope Francis: more politician than pontiff

In traditional Catholic parlance, the Latin monogram IHS means Iesus Hominum Salvator or “Jesus Savior of Mankind.” But in the 21 century pop culture world—where empty-headed Kim Kardashian is inexplicably famous (“The pope is dope”) and an aloof, talk show-junkie U.S. president is “too cool” to respect Constitutional limits—to this oddball triumvirate we add pope-turned-politician Francis. As with Mr. Obama's ever-intrusive interference, likewise for Francis, apparently focus on religion and spiritual matters are not enough. For him, IHS translates into: 'I'm Hypocritical, Seriously.' Indeed, has any pope in modern times been so agenda-driven or inserted himself so readily into the election of a future American president?

Hours after praying for Mexican migrants who died trying to reach the United States illegally, the pope took the opportunity to bring attention to his pro-illegal alien stance in violation of U.S. secular law by answering a question related to Donald Trump's promised U.S. border wall (paid for by Mexico). His response:

“A person who thinks only about building walls — wherever they may be — and not building bridges, is not Christian.” Francis added, “I’d just say that this man is not Christian if he said it this way.”

That's quite an interesting position. So anybody who wants to build border walls “is not Christian,” is that it? How about someone already living safely ensconced behind them? Naturally, I refer to the 39-foot walled city, the Vatican. Granted the fortifications were there well before March 13, 2013 when this 266 pope of the Roman Catholic Church came to power. However, if he's serious on this subject why hasn't he already done a Reaganesque “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”?

Living in Europe, surely this “intercessor for God” is well aware of the 60 million displaced migrants literally flooding into Europe from the war-torn Middle East. Of course, I jest about the need to remove walls (or prevent them like “bridge-building” Pope Francis). Yet, as he is the Holy Father, what's to stop him from dismissing the Swiss guard and throwing open the gates to the downtrodden? (Imagine how many thousands the thick, protective walls of the Vatican could accommodate!)

My point: he's not serious, beyond the lip service of saying and doing the things that cast the Catholic Church in a positive light. Living in a palatial fortress that is literally its own country, he's a limousine liberal chauffeured instead in a Fiat 500L. A superficial demonstration of his “regular guy” status. Importantly, recognize the equivalent Obama-like hypocrisy, Francis's version of “teachable moment” political optics: publicly scolding another with migrant advice he is loath to personally practice. Specifically, Pope Francis's outspoken MSM-reported condemnation of the l'enfant terrible political phenomenon that is Donald Trump is intended (as everything he does) to constantly burnish the Church's historically dubious reputation in the wider court of public opinion. To reference Scripture, Mark 12:17: “And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Simply put, too much politician's gamesmanship—not enough pope.

Up until this latest dust-up, crossing swords with Republican front-runner Donald Trump, Pope Francis had been coasting with Obama 2008-like popularity and “newness.” To relate his position to Obama's in today's America, the honeymoon is officially over. All thanks to the uncensored buzz saw who may very well be the next president of the United States.

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

WaPo: Never met a criminal-alien they didn't like

Heaven forbid The Washington Post show a smidgen of the same bleeding-heart compassion to the victims of convicted felons instead of criminal perpetrators.

Profiled subject Rodolfo Padilla's first lawlessness from age 10 permitted him the enjoyment of the stolen hospitality of the United States. In the ensuing 37 years, in gratitude, Mr. Padilla chose to become a cocaine-peddling scourge, no doubt ruining countless lives.  One again, our society has generously granted him the boon of an early release from prison after a 7 year stint.  Apparently, America, "the land of opportunity," was not sufficient for this economic parasite to make a positive contribution.

Why this uninvited squatter living in the shadows should suddenly be thrust from obscurity into the pages of The Washington Post is no mystery.  It seems their reporters have never met anyone truly worthy of being deported.

Where is the journalistic balance of the truly victimized?  Ignored, the nameless sufferers of Mr. Padilla's actions don't even warrant a mention, let alone receive this criminal-alien's gentle and sympathetic treatment in the press.

Now, because Mr. Padilla is not an American citizen, he faces the fate of possible deportation to his birth country, Mexico, where he has no familial ties. And unlike The Washington Post's frankly tenuous connection with the truth on these matters, Mr. Padilla has a moment of clarity before bemoaning the reality of his circumstances: “I know I messed up. I know I have to face facts.” In this, he could teach the powers-that-be in the MSM a thing or two.

As Miss Manners would agree: no matter how well behaved, any guest overstaying his welcome ultimately becomes a pest to his hosts. (With the holidays upon us, observant Democrats should litmus test their in-laws.)  In any case, it is the height of hypocrisy that illegal alien “advocates” would be quoted hollering about the rights of people who, by definition, don't respect American laws in the first place. This is doubly true of Mr. Padilla who is both an illegal alien (none of this vague politically correct “undocumented migrant” nonsense) and a convicted jailbird.

It's long overdue for this birdy, like his 43,479 incarcerated fellows, to fly south (of the border) for winter. Per U.S. Sentencing Commission data, men of Mr. Padilla's caliber make up 3.5 percent of the U.S. population, but account for 16.8 percent of drug trafficking cases and 36.7 percent of all federal sentences for criminal convictions in FY 2014. And the damage this group has done to society at large is unknown. 

What is clear is that The Washington Post promotes the false and irresponsible notion that this country should be left wide open to persons impossible to track in the case of illegals; impossible to vet, as in the Syrians; and anyone else with the desire and the gumption to make the trip. To these dystopian ideologues, Mr. Padilla's newly found clean living, high school equivalency and mastery of the guitar are more than sufficient reasons to allow any perpetual law-breaker second chances to remain.

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