Washington Post: Hillary Kool-Aid Drinkers

“If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation.” – Republican nominee Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton during the second presidential debate, October 9, 2016

“Mark the moment. A major-party presidential nominee is officially promising to lock up his political opponent, despite an impartial federal investigation....” An anonymous Washington Post editorial, October 10, 2016

As The Post is a Hillary fundraiser, it's impossible for them to be impartial related to Mrs. Clinton's candidacy. In practice that makes them a propagandist rag rather than a legitimate news source.

This is proven by how The Post has, once again, twisted reality into something completely unrecognizable. In their absurdist editorial “A threat to the rule of law,” Donald Trump's pledge to do the right thing—to prosecute Hillary Clinton's obvious corruption—is “wrong”? Let us cite the legal basis: under Title 18, Section 1924, of federal law, it is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and imprisonment for any federal employee to knowingly remove classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.” Mrs. Clinton's non-government, unapproved servers certainly qualify. Thus, Mr. Trump's promise of a special prosecutor for Mrs. Clinton is actually following legal precedent: holding the powerful to the same legal standard as everyone else. Isn't that the purpose of our American democracy rather than the whims of the rich and politically powerful?

Mysteriously, the Post doesn't agree writing: “If anyone needed any more proof that Mr. Trump does not understand the meaning of rule of law as opposed to arbitrary rule of autocrat—that he would use the levers of the federal government in a vindictive, self-serving and corrupt manner—Mr. Trump provided it.” As an example, does Barack Obama's continuing misuse of the IRS to target political opponents suddenly not qualify? Why does The Post confuse outsider Trump with the acts of the current president who has existed by dictatorial overreaching executive orders for the last eight years?

In any case, since when does a politically motivated sham of an FBI investigation mean anything? Only to the Kool-Aid drinkers at The Post. They're the ones who “snarl and double down on old falsehoods” in their jaded character assassination of truth-telling Trump.

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

Sanders’s Charade For President

In the American sense of the word, there is nothing “independent” about Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders; an outspoken advocate of bigger government, higher taxes and further income redistribution á la Obama.  As an avowed Socialist, his collectivist views are anti-Capitalist and antithetical to the American economic system.  With 93 million able-bodied Americans looking for full time employment— and uncounted by labor statistics­— a politician with Mr. Sanders’s views is too radical to be elected, even by loopy Democrat standards.  So why is such a wild card in the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president?   

Make no mistake: he of the little “I” by his surname is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party.  Indeed, he who regularly caucuses and votes with Democrats is a de facto Democrat.  In truth, Mr. Sanders is running precisely because he is unelectable.  His role in this Kabuki theater is to happily serve the collective: to be a smiling, friendly place holder to populate the stage during debates and in the press.  To this end, he has not and will not say anything truly controversial about Hillary Clinton as any legitimate contender would.  For example, the best Mr. Sanders can muster is milquetoast platitudes: “Hillary Clinton is a candidate, I am a candidate…. The people in this country will make their choice.”  The closest thing to a criticism thus far was calling Mrs. Clinton a “fence-sitter” on the Trans-Pacific trade proposal.  Mr. Sanders should know that fence-sitting— and going with the changing political winds—is the very epitome of Clintonian politics.

Mr. Sanders presence creates the illusion of a contest for the Democratic nomination—rather than a coronation—and makes Hillary Clinton appear more politically mainstream­—and therefore, more palatable to the general electorate.  The payoff to Mr. Sanders is increased personal visibility in the political conversation and a wide platform to promote his anti-Capitalist agenda.

On the other hand, with only three years of Senate experience under her belt Mrs. Warren is savvy enough to know that the voters are unlikely to elect another third year, neophyte, progressive Senator to the White House.  That's why she who claims to be “1/32 American Indian” will bide her time and cool her moccasin-adorned heels in the legislature.

Progressives like Warren and Socialists like Sanders are birds of a feather: both believe in the economic fantasy of “free” stuff—which is never really free—and is always paid for by someone else.  Hence, their policy of “free” tuition for students at public colleges and universities.  With typical Democrat blasé, they operate in a fiscal twilight zone (where debt and deficit spending don’t matter) and resources just drop magically from the heavens to serve their dystopian designs.  In essence they demonize “Paul” (Wall Street) to justify stealing from him (class warfare) in order to pander for “Peter's” vote.  Everything for Democrats revolves around garnering numbers for reelection: maintaining their own political power base.  In this case, that is exactly Mr. Sander’s underlying purpose: to get Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office.

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