Whitey's Scarlet Letter: “P” For Privilege

“Discussions about race are often perceived as being only open to people of color, but I think it is just as important for white people to partake in conversations about race. No matter how accepting someone is, that doesn’t stop them from being part of a system based on centuries of inequality.” – Aileen Ida, president of the College Democrats, Elizabethtown College

In 2017, how else can adolescent angst be expressed except to tilt at imaginary windmills? Is Aileen Ida simply ignorant of this American age of near universal acceptance of differences? Indeed, concrete evidence is obvious everywhere. Until last month, did she miss the fact that a black man has been president for the last eight years? How about our tolerance for the new institution of gay marriage? Why the public self-flagellation by students at Elizabethtown College, a small liberal arts school in lily-white Lancaster County, Pennsylvania?

Beyond their ivied walls, these safe-spacers can't cope with the new reality of Trump's America. After all, their party, the Democrats, are in political purgatory: backbenchers in government, exposed as a regional party in urban centers on both coasts that don't include them! Thus, they wear cultist lapel pins—shaped like plain white puzzle pieces—to demonstrate they “don't fit in anywhere”.

Naturally, they don't comprehend the true meaning of their symbolism. They frame their attention-grabbing antics as some kind of wacky multigenerational genetic guilt. Perhaps some of their ancestors were slaveholders, but if so, so what? It's a safe bet these computer savvy know-nothings haven't checked on ancestry.com. Thus, they self-shame by pretending to be distant offspring of theoretical 19^th century white oppressors? No wonder they're progressives; that's dopey thinking of the highest order! A modern riff on thought-crime from George Orwell's totalitarian classic “1984”.

Oh, how these young Democrats yearn for Hester Prynne's America of 1850. When slavery, oppression and bigotry were real! At least when the fictional Ms. Prynne wore her Scarlet Letter, she was guilty of adultery. However, these “cultural warriors”—these champions of convoluted fairness—have very little to legitimately object to. So, the witless and coddled define themselves by false projection and historical misappropriation. A twisted millennial fantasy of a white bogeyman, seen exclusively in their dormitory mirrors.

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

Obama “Whips” the Black Community

“I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good send-off? Go vote.” – President Obama at the annual Congressional Black Caucus gala on September 17, 2016

The “massa” of the White House, Barack Obama, has decreed: 'A vote for Hillary is a vote for me!' With the gap evaporating between crooked Clinton and outsider Trump, Mr. Obama is whipping up this crucial voting bloc (which cast ballots for him above 90% in the past two presidential elections). Obama repeatedly panders to the lowest common denominator, the skin-deep consideration of race. Yet, due directly to his presidency no group has economically suffered more than the black community. Therefore, Mr. Obama's audacity in expecting their support (for his would-be successor) is frankly galling. Once again, for this president, everything is about him: a “personal insult”; his “legacy”; giving him a “good send-off.”

“Kingly” Obama has lived exceedingly well. Unfortunately, the vast majority of his fellows—from Chicago and beyond—cannot make the same claim. In one telling example, black youth unemployment was 393% higher than the national average. Further, the poverty rate for the black population is now 25.8%. He pretends these deep-seeded problems, among many, do not exist. That makes him a rank political opportunist (in addition to being the worst president of the modern age).

A new Census report on income and poverty shows 43 million Americans are poor. That's one in seven: equivalent to every resident in the most populated state of California (38.8 million) plus Oregon (4 million). To add context, 3.2 million families have fallen below the poverty line since Obama assumed office—and 93 million Americans remain unemployed.

Barack Obama's only concern is preserving his nation-destroying policies. Therefore, he wants to keep all black folks on the Democrat's poverty plantation (read: subsistence living via big government dependence). Like Hillary says 'ignore your lying eyes' to her wrongdoing, Mr. Obama says 'ignore your empty pockets.' That anyone would trust this snake oil salesman—or want a continuation of the disastrous Obama years—is frankly mind-boggling. He's played American liberals for suckers from Day One. That includes all black voters blindly heeding the “master's” call to keep anti-American progressives in power.

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

Golfer Obama's Racial Cornflakes

“President Obama views everything through the prism of race. He's a race hustler. ... This guy could take a bowl of cornflakes with chocolate milk poured in it, and he could find some racist angle to it.” – Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke on this president's unwillingness to cut short his two week golfing vacation neither to condemn rioting and his city's burning by Black Lives Matter nor assist Louisiana flood victims (2016)

“I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that, but … Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody [fellow malcontent and friend Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.] when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” – Barack Obama on “racist” cops (2009)

While golfer-in-chief—and Tiger Woods wannabe—Barack Obama frolicked on a two week Martha's Vineyard vacation, most notably, a Louisiana flood caused 13 deaths, demolished 40,000 homes, and left 100,000 residents homeless. For a moment, consider the optics of any American president serenely at-play among pristine green, manicured links while his fellow citizens are bedeviled by a home-destroying natural disaster? What kind of amoral person is that? What other public servant would get away scot-free with this kind of nonchalant non-response on full display?

Given Mr. Obama's track record, his reaction is frankly no surprise. After all, this is the same “leader” who ignored the terrorist uprising that murdered 4 dead Americans in Benghazi (subsequently lying that the fictitious cause was an internet video). To add insult to injury, he chose to keep to his predetermined schedule then too: a next day Las Vegas fundraiser rather than deal with the tragedy. Almost eight years on, why should this “tiger” change his stripes?

He didn't and he won't. On that score, neither will similarly disinterested Hillary. To make an Obama-Benghazi parallel, both were off together fundraising during the flood's aftermath. She still hasn't made an appearance in Baton Rouge. She figures her phone call to the governor and a Facebook posting of “heartbreak” for Louisiana is more than sufficient. Once can reasonably infer her thinking, “At this point, what difference does it make?” Obviously, the disaster matters not at all to her or she too would be there. Moreover, I'd wager slim odds that this influence peddler's “charitable” foundation ever bothers to even cut a relief check.

Not even in office (yet), The Donald is already acting more appropriately presidential than both the current occupant of the Oval Office and the empty skirt hoping to replace him. Of the three, Mr. Trump showed up first, and in a timely manner. Of greater significance is the little-reported 18 wheeler of supplies he paid for and distributed. As with everything else, lying Hillary Clinton ignores truth. In last Thursday's Reno, NV speech she laughably still claims he's a “hater” of minorities. She said, “He [Trump] is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party.” As usual, she's got everything backwards, and needs to look in a mirror. The radical fringe is big government control progressivism that has metastasized the Democratic Party into something completely alien to JFK.

Deniers of Trump's philanthropy will simply state the obvious, that Trump's a rich guy with deep pockets. Yet, the Clintons are also uber-rich: per their tax returns personally worth $238 million. How much of that scratch will be similarly donated to the displaced, predominantly black community in Louisiana? You know, the same ones tee time Obama cares so “deeply” for—from the elitist playground of Martha's Vineyard?

Outspoken Sheriff David Clarke is right about Mr. Obama's jaded view of “colored” cornflakes. Progressives promote phantom discrimination for self-serving political polarization. That's why they regularly conjure racist bogeymen [read: white cops] out of thin air. In reality, a rare few exist in today's widely tolerant America. After all, does the social progress of two generations of now passé interracial marriage—and newly legalized gay marriage—mean nothing? Indeed, how can the American voters who freely elected a black man to the U.S. presidency—not once, but twice—be negatively influenced by his skin color? Such is the impossible charge repeatedly leveled by this deluded and hypocritical “leader” while he mindless enjoys “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.”

Barack Obama has covered his multitude of policy failures (and administration scandals) by habitually crying wolf. It's the utter misuse of the presidential bully pulpit as a change-the-subject political ploy (with the added personal benefit of keeping his identity-based constituencies artificially fired up to support him). Specifically, Mr. Obama has consistently highlighted isolated, tragic examples as “typical” of fictitious racial tension in America. Why else would he speak negatively of police officer Darren Wilson (later completely exonerated of any wrongdoing) at the international forum of the United Nations?

In the same vein, nobodies and thugs like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray are sanctified in death, distorted into empty symbols of a bygone Civil Rights era. For example, the narrative surrounding Michael Brown's 'hands up, don't shoot' never actually happened. But, the tall tale sparked the very real violence of Black Lives Matter anarchy. Thus, blameless cops have been executed (in New York and Dallas), rioting cities have been burned (Ferguson, MO, Milwaukee, WI and Baltimore, MD), and all along minority communities are played for fools. By margins as high as 90%, these dupes gratefully reelect their progressive oppressors. While they toil away in crime-plagued inner-city slums, Hillary “dead broke” Clinton is a corrupt jet-setter living in an elitist bubble of armed Secret Service protection, limousines, private planes and multiple palatial estates.

The only question that remains is whether she will eat Wheaties and take up Obama's rich man sport if elected, or nurse her well-deserved loss to Donald Trump with a bowl of politically correct fruit loops and racist chocolate milk.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Hillary's Hypocrisy Henchmen

“If it were not for double standards, liberals [politicians and the MSM] would have no standards at all.” - WMAL's conservative radio personality Chris Plante

When extreme leftist klansman David Duke announced public support for a Donald Trump presidency, the MSM wrongly smeared the Republican candidate for the endorsement. Honestly, in what sane world is any candidate responsible for any nutcase who chooses to back him? If American culture consistently demonstrates anything, it's that it takes all kinds of people freely making choices for their own reasons. That's democracy.

Yet, this jaded presentation of information was not journalism's objective reporting of facts, but naked partisanship based upon false innuendo. For starters, a racist, anti-suffrage klansman will never populate the party of Abraham Lincoln—Republicans then as now—that's the Democrats' department. Before one jumps to the erroneous conclusion that liberals aren't “that way” anymore, which of today's political parties bases its polarizing narratives on irrelevancies like gender identity? Which party's candidate says: 'elect me because I'm a woman?' Furthermore, which party successfully counted on another superficiality, that of race over the last eight disastrous years?

Even the educated are fooled that the Democrats “atoned” for their disgraceful pro-slavery history with the passage of Lyndon Baines Johnson's “holy grail”: the 1964 Civil Rights bill. However, what is always true of progressives—then with Johnson, now with Clinton—is that things below the surface of their media-spun actions don't line up with truth. At the time, LBJ admitted privately his real agenda:

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!”

Started in the 20^th century and carried forward, what accompanied the good anti-discrimination statutes were invisible economic chains that have tricked generations of minorities into the barest government-supported subsistence in exchange for becoming loyal Democratic voting blocs. This dynamic is better known as the Democrat's poverty plantation. How else does one explain 90% of Afro-Americans supporting Republicans in Lincoln's time, but only approximately 10% more recently?

Minorities are perpetually infantilized; convinced by Democrats via their MSM creature that obtaining a free identity card is a bridge too far to cross. That such a standard applied to anyone of voting age is somehow surreptitiously racist. Yet, as anyone sensible knows, an ID is a basic, modern necessity. How else does one open a bank account, get a job or legally drive a car? As president, only Barack Obama doesn't need one. While he habitually golfs with millionaires—and parties with billionaires—his wholly abandoned Chicago fellows eek out impoverished lives in inner city slums more dangerous than some Middle Eastern war zones. Only the most extraordinary individuals—a select few like Dr. Ben Carson—rise from such humble beginnings to enjoy our now debt-ridden capitalistic system. If Hillary's advocacy of Bernie Sanders' style socialism is the path to mass prosperity, wouldn't brainy Mr. Carson support her?

Speaking of unhinged support for a corrupt liar, we arrive at the funny farm of colorful characters that actually do endorse this Clintonian hydra of American scandal. While the media has ensured nutter David Duke is a household name, the powers-at-be have ignored John Bachtell. (“Jeopardy” champions, does that guy ring a bell for you?) Mr. Bachtell—an outspoken Hillary advocate—is the little known chairman of the Communist Party of the United States.

Think he's just an exception to the rule? Let's try the better known two-faced Seddique Mateen, a vocal Taliban supporter (read: pro-terrorism) and simultaneous lip service apologist for his jihadist, mass murdering son. (The younger Mateen, Omar, slaughtered 49 innocents at the Orlando gay nightclub, Pulse.) Unlike Trump, the “objective” press did not take Hillary Clinton to task for not disavowing Seddique's clapping presence at her Kissimmee rally (ironically featuring a speech about the tragedy). For his part, obviously, the elder Mateen felt quite comfortable in Mrs. Clinton's company. He even told a local TV affiliate: “I was invited by the Democratic Party.”

Naturally, the Clinton camp denied Seddique's claim—much as they habitually deny every unsavory reality related to their candidate. The press has not followed up on the matter. Nor are they ever likely to. Why? For one thing, 93% of journalists self-identify as Democrats. Moreover, as with all contemporary Clinton wrongdoing, one must heavily factor money into the equation (read: Clinton Cash). Thus, the larger answer lies in the fact that as of 2011, 6 conglomerates control 90% of the legacy media. Given all of the kid glove, fawning coverage of Hillary Clinton, what are the odds that virtually all of these corporate behemoths are not contributors to her “charitable foundation” and/or her presidential campaign?

As Charity-gate has already demonstrated, “dead broke” Hillary peddles high level government influence for an ill-gotten 238 million dollar personal fortune. Undoubtedly, the liberal media has met Mrs. Clinton's asking price. Therefore, they have both a philosophical bias and a substantial investment in her presidency. Simply put, the fix is in. In effect, the MSM functions as the propagandist arm of the anti-JFK Democratic Party. All of the above truths are easily obscured, buried under an avalanche of 24-hour MSM spin.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Sulu's Dark Side of Half Moon

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” ― John F. Kennedy at Rice University, September 12, 1962

Immortalized as classic TV, Star Trek (1966 - '69) and its optimistic opening phrase “Space: the final frontier...” was a veiled reference to JFK's New Frontier ideals of a fair and inclusive society. It was the definitive sci-fi program (stylistically years ahead of the tastes of its meager original audience). Under the guise of fictional 22^nd century space explorers, the show dealt directly (albeit subtly) with highly-charged social issues. Recall that the 1960s was the Civil Rights era. As an example, the program made commentary on evolving race relations with “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.” In season three, episode 70, a pair of two-toned, hate-filled humanoid characters are the last survivors of their kind. One is black/white face right/left, the other is the same—colors reversed. For 50,000 years one has relentlessly chased the other. In the story their mutual journey ends in isolation—and certain death on their nuked home planet. (Produced today might the two “space aliens” be portrayed with black and blue color schemes representing Black Lives Matter and the recently slain 5 Dallas police officers?)

As Star Trek traveled the cosmos (the creative landscape of the writers' imaginations) Jack Kennedy made the real-life determination that Americans would be the first to journey to the moon. This 'one great leap for mankind' was accomplished during the Apollo 11 mission when the Eagle lunar module touched desolate terra firma on June 20, 1969. However, Star Trek did not fare so well. Its “five year mission” was cut short after only three seasons (canceled by NBC for low ratings). Synchronistically, Star Trek's TV life span mirrored the brief three years of “Camelot,” the nickname of Mr. Kennedy's presidency (due to his assassination in Dallas on November 22, 1963).

Today, finding universal acceptance of biological differences like skin color and sexual orientation seems more difficult than JFK's realized dream of moon walking. Star Trek, in its own way, was similarly groundbreaking. Specifically, the first interracial kiss on TV occurred between Lt. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) and humanitarian lothario Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) modeled on JFK. Let's just say that Captain Kirk seemed to have a comely, scantily dressed new female at every port of call. And related to this “smooch heard 'round the world,” Mr. Shatner rakishly insisted on a script change so the glory would be his rather than Spock's (Leonard Nimoy). Thus, he boldly went (on TV anyway) where no man had gone before.

Warp speed to America of 2016. With interracial marriage commonplace—and gay marriage newly legalized—what's the big deal that one of the signature characters will be openly gay? In the appropriately named “Star Trek: Beyond,” the third installment of the movie franchise (re-imagined with a new cast), doesn't such a thematic change rightfully pay homage to the spirit of creator Gene Roddenberry's original show—and inclusive sensibilities? Isn't this just a simple substitution: sexual orientation for race? Surprisingly, not everyone is creatively on board. Ironically, the person opposed is now openly gay actor George Takei who played navigator Hikaru Sulu in the original series.

Mr. Takei came boldly out of the celluloid closet in real-life in 2005. Why can't today's fictional version of Hikaru Sulu do the same? Played by John Cho, his take: “This movie is going to be coming out on the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, the 50th anniversary of paying tribute to Gene Roddenberry, the man whose vision it was that carried us through half a century. Honor him and create a new character. I urged them. He [director Justin Lin] left me feeling that was going to happen.” Well, precisely. How is it that Mr. Takei has gotten everything so entirely backwards when saying, “Unfortunately, it’s a twist of Gene Roddenberry’s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it’s really unfortunate.” Sorry Georgie! As a Hollywood veteran, he knows very well there are no creative sacred cows—for better or worse. An example of better was the superior reboot (read: story, acting, special effects) of the brilliant “Battlestar Galactica” (2004-'09). In this update Lt. Kara “Starbuck” Thrace featured a thematically complex female (Katee Sackoff) in place of the unremarkable male version (Dirk Benedict) in the original. On the other hand, inevitably there is worse. Does anyone seriously believe that an all-female team of “Ghostbusters” is really a good idea?

The original Star Trek portrayed a fictional Kennedy-style Utopian society aspired to. Today's Star Trek feature films reflect today's reality of a widely tolerant America that has—in great measure—arrived. On screen, as in real-life, the journey to universal acceptance of difference steadily continues. Notable tragedies like Orlando and Dallas are manipulated and spun by the propagandist MSM as generalized American “intolerance.” Similarly, anarchist movements like Black Lives Matter are wrongly highlighted for a polarizing political effect beneficial to progressives who lead by social division. Yet, to any clearly thinking person, the violence and the killing remain exceptions to the rule. Optimists see the truth: the normalcy of open minds, everyday courtesy—and shared grief in the loss of innocent lives. Ultimately, love overcomes fear in the same way that light overcomes darkness. And as Star Trek aficionados well know resistance to certain things—like reaching for the stars or accepting diversity—is indeed futile.

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