Sanctuary Policy's Rotten Core

Is it really any surprise to discover that accused child rapist Henry Sanchez-Millian, 18—and his father Adolfo Sanchez-Reyes, 43—are both illegal aliens? Perhaps the state of Maryland—so concerned with family unification of other nation's citizens on American soil—can arrange a holding cell for father and son to share? After all, that's the convoluted reasoning behind their sanctuary practice (that actively subverts federal immigration law). Therefore, by their logic, a communal living arrangement behind bars is the most humane thing to do. At any rate, the son has been charged with first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree sexual offenses. If convicted, he faces the penalty of life imprisonment. On the other hand, his father contends with the comparably mild rebuke of deportation. That means separation of the two for the foreseeable future, if not forever. An ironic outcome given what started this mess in the first place.

This situation definitively demonstrates the domino effect of lawlessness. A dreadful chain of events that began with our porous southern border—the choices of a Guatemalan father and son to border jump—and Barack Obama's eyes closed catch-and-release program that reunified the pair! Speaking of two lawbreakers, Sanchez-Millian's wingman in that bathroom tryst with a 14-year-old at Rockville High School, is El Salvadorian Jose O. Montano, 17. (Reportedly, he was sent to Maryland to join an uncle.)

Complicating matters is federal law (U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler vs. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) that mandates school age illegals are entitled to a public education same as citizens. For their part, the local school administration enrolled these two wrongdoers—not as a junior and senior respectively—but in ninth grade classes. That's how this duo of older, Spanish speaking foreigners had access to this much younger female (among many). (The sexual assault occurred on school property at approximately 9 AM on Thursday, March 16.) Specifically, how else would Montano have met her, or been present to push her into that boys' bathroom? His attorney, David Wooten stated, “This was a consensual act. It was preplanned.” Wooten bolsters his claim by asserting that the victim texted “explicitly compromising images of herself”. Said last week and repeated Monday, Sanchez-Millian's lawyer Andrew Jezic reiterated, “All parties were willing participants.” If you're wondering why both narratives so tightly correspond, both men work together at the same firm!

All potential mitigating factors, if legitimate, have yet to be determined. Meanwhile, per Maryland state law the age of consent is technically 17, but persons aged between 14 and 16 may consent to sex given a small age difference of not more than 4 years for the older party. That's immaterial here as her assailants, near or just beyond maturity, have both been charged as adults. So, Sanchez-Millian and Montano may have gotten away with flouting our immigration laws, but they will likely get no pass for their brutal bathroom misadventures involving gang-raping and sodomizing a fellow ninth-grader.

This egregious circumstance is one of many cautionary tales. How American society is being destroyed within by the wrongheaded embrace of the undocumented under the guise of dogmatic “tolerance” and multiculturalism. The actual problem isn't America's systemic discrimination of foreigners. By any measure, what country celebrates diversity, or differences, more fully than us? The wholesale rejection of illegals has nothing to do with their superficial attributes such as ethnicity or country of origin, as pro-illegal proponents laughably insist. Indeed, their knee-jerk demonization of objectors as “racists” are lame attempts at distraction: a subject-changing excuse to justify their bizarre advocacy of naked lawlessness.

In that regard, if our laws are so draconian, why do so many clamor to live here (by any possible means)? Historically, as today, America remains a melting pot with one modern caveat: a person with legal status is warmly welcomed here; one who doesn't, isn't. Likewise, would any sensible person open their private residence to cohabitate with total strangers? Is America not the beloved “home” of her legal inhabitants?

In truth, illegal aliens are criminals: an invading underclass of squatters. They're the ones that don't respect our laws and customs—not vice versa as their supporters loudly proclaim. Therefore, a wildly chaotic influence is exerted, like acid upon our culture's social fabric. As important building blocks of that foundation are our public school systems, witness the snowballing uproar caused by this outrage at Maryland's Rockville High School! The additional revelation that Adolfo Sanchez-Reyes is also undocumented is yet more salt to a whole community's open wound. After all, it's obvious Sanchez-Millian's father acted as a familial magnet, didn't he? A butterfly effect of what was, what could have been avoided, and what should have been prevented.

From every angle, this specific incident is intolerable. These affiliated troublemakers including Montano and his uncle (whose legal status is unclear) should have been immediately expelled, not permitted to enter and reside within the United States. But, they were and a radiating cascade of escalating crime, loss and disruption is the predictable result. Most tragically, would the unnecessary suffering of a violated 14-year-old child and her aggrieved family—sacrifices upon the altar of politically correct multiculturalism—happened otherwise? Worrying about the fate of foreign lawbreakers while ignoring the rights of victimized citizens explains the topsy-turvy nature of our mixed-up, rather than mixed, society.

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

Yelling “Fire” In Political Theater

Under certain circumstances, First Amendment protection of expression is not absolute. For example, causing a panic by uttering the false claim of fire in a theater. Such incendiary acts are disallowed precisely because they endanger public safety. In our contentious political realm, the social fabric of our culture is under equivalent attack by anti-American forces.

Naturally, that number does not include peaceful protesters. That assumes the MSM could bother to find any. For years now their spotlight has been exclusively trained on Black Lives Matter and/or other divisive figures detrimental to the healthy functioning of our democracy. In that regard, disagreement doesn't entitle anyone the latitude to threaten members of the Electoral College, the president, his wife or the White House itself.

Some fifty days into the Trump presidency all of the above has now occurred. In fact, the drumbeat of sedition started well before The Donald even assumed office. Recall that GOP electors in the Electoral College were hounded—even receiving death threats—if they cast their ballots for him! (Of the 270 required, Trump ultimately prevailed with 304, but lost two votes due to a pair of faithless electors.) To that end, anti-Trump Hollywood celebrities encouraged them to go rogue (via a viral video). Still, the gauntlet was really thrown down one day after the Inauguration. At the Washington's Women's March, singer Madonna announced she had “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House”.

Today another attention seeking rapper, Snoop Dogg, has followed the Material Girl's lead. In a music video called “Lavender”, he shoots “Clown-In-Chief Ronald Klump”: a Donald Trump look-alike in clownface. (His weapon is a Joker-style prop gun with a 'BANG' flag so “President Klump” is unharmed, but the message of metaphorical assassination is clear.) True to form, an understandably miffed Trump tweeted, “Can you imagine what the outcry would be if @SnoopDogg, failing career and all, had aimed and fired the gun at President Obama? Jail time!” That's actually an astute observation despite its surface meaning. For starters, it's highly unlikely his predecessor would have been the subject of such a stunt. After all, can one imagine Snoop Dogg having the temerity to shoot a clownish caricature of Barack Obama?

To that end, Mr. Obama habitually employed methods to silence dissenters. That's why on January 2, 2014 CNN's Jake Tapper stated, “the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act [the draconian 1917 law] to go after whistle-blowers who leaked to journalists ... more than all previous administrations combined.” That law, coupled with others, was used to obtain the email and phone records of Fox News's James Rosen. Even a New York Times reporter, James Risen, was not immune. He fought a successful seven-year battle to protect a confidential government source with a potential jail sentence hanging precariously over his head. Still think Snoop Dogg would have dared to cross Obama as he did Trump?

Unlike with the last guy, public figures' lips are flapping with unfiltered abandon. The difference with past generations is political dissent was generally principled and civil, not based on a cultish devotion to a set of ideas, or automatically demonizing the other side. To make a political point for today's objectors, is it right that their messages be so acidic and deliberately personal? As bad as Snoop Dogg's video is, his nephew Shad Moss (a.k.a. Bow Wow, formerly 'Lil') took things to a new low with a salvo directed unfairly at Melania Trump: “Ayo @realDonaldTrump shut your punk ass up talking shit about my uncle @SnoopDogg before we pimp your wife and make her work for us.” Certainly, such a throwback attitude has no place in our evolved 21^st century sensibilities. That means mutual respect between the sexes, not objectification.

Contrary to Bow Wow's demeaning view, all first ladies are apolitical symbols of American grace. Thus, these types of malevolent statements are completely beyond the pail. Would such misogyny be tolerated if it had been directed at Michelle rather than Melania? Where's the feminist outcry in Mrs. Trump's defense? This is yet more maliciousness from a growing list of wacky Hollywood entertainers. A disturbing trend already tiresome in the fledgling Trump era.

The selective outrage was on full display only when it came to defending Mrs. Obama. Recall the firestorm when Pamela Ramsey Taylor, director of West Virginia's nonprofit Clay County Development Corp., posted this unkind comment to Facebook, “It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady [Melania Trump] in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a[n] Ape in heels”. In this instance, First Amendment freedoms—which are supposed to protect unpopular, even offense speech—did not shield Ms. Taylor from being fired from her job. (Amazingly, the fallout didn't end there. Local mayor Beverly Whaling also resigned over the controversy for posting a supportive reply, “Just made my day, Pam”.) So much for freedom of speech when it comes at the expense of a Democrat.

By any objective measure, isn't Bow Wow's first lady tweet targeting Melania as cruel as what was said of Michelle? Thus, the larger question looms: why the deafening silence in March of 2017 to the same venom that provoked fury in December of 2016?

Ah, the difference a presidential transition and a few months make; a tectonic cultural shift! Still, the underlying answer is that anti-First Amendment political correctness was weaponized during the Obama years. Then, for any reason under the sun—legitimate or not—no one could publicly criticize the Obamas without being absurdly labeled as a “racist”. From the fawning press to the eyes closed court of public opinion, virtually everyone treated the Obamas with kid gloves. This dynamic is further borne out by the fact that both remain widely popular despite his disastrous presidency and her coddled sense of entitlement (read: Air Force One travel, designer duds and 5-star White House living weren't enough for the missus. Michelle wanted to be paid to be first lady).

Unfairly, the Trumps have received extremely rough treatment compared to their indulged predecessors. I can recall no personal attacks leveled at Mr. Obama during his job-killing, government-expanding, debt-exploding tenure. While his gargantuan mistakes (read: Iran, Benghazi, Bergdahl, criminal aliens/porous border et cetera) and massive scandals (read: ObamaCare's broken promises, IRS targeting, Snowden's leaks and CIA spying et cetera) were repeatedly downplayed with the MSM's softest language. What should have been months-long newspaper filling Nixonian exposés were reported as one day stories, quickly dropped. Contrast that to the daily slings directed at Donald Trump. He's even denied the presidential tradition of a honeymoon! Beyond that, his administration, unlike Obama's, is under the media's microscope that wildly exaggerates the slightest missteps.

Rough treatment includes real or fictional threats of harm. That includes Snoop Dogg's character assassination of Trump—and his nephew's carnal call to engage Mrs. Trump in the world's oldest profession. Neither affront should be excused as a byproduct of our age's lack of civility. Likewise, Madonna's anarchist desire to incinerate the presidential residence should not get a pass.

Why should these lawless agitators enjoy First Amendment protection simply because they are geographically separated from their targets? A call to destroy the people's house. A veiled threat to the president's life presented as an artistic farce. A disrespectful tirade that belittles the presidential couple, threatening her with servitude. All are tantamount to yelling “fire” in that theater. Indeed, all statements strike at the heart of American's foundations that promote order and peace. Specifically, such anti-social communication incites violence by broadcasting alienation and mistrust. That, in turn, preys upon the impressionable to do wrong. The end result makes everyone less safe, keeps our society perpetually fractured.

For proof, one only need look to a U.S. president who was actually assassinated by a Hollywood actor. Today, that leader, Abraham Lincoln, is revered because he held the Union together despite the forces of chaos arrayed against him. His now famous words are ones all future rabble-rousers should heed: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Hillary Channels Margaret Sanger

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

'To get rid of "Redskins," let's pay off Dan Snyder' (Justin Moyer, Op-ed, Washington Post)

Just because Mr. Moyer has a price why does he assume that everyone else does?  Be logical: the last thing a billionaire needs is more money.  And because Mr. Snyder doesn't share Mr. Moyer's perspective--when Mr. Snyder's view is the only one that really matters as he is the private owner of the franchise so his word literally is the law--Mr. Moyer advocates a payoff (a.k.a. a bribe).  And does Mr. Moyer reach into his own deep pockets to follow through on his own advice?  No, of course not, Mr. Moyer expects to use someone else's resources to achieve his politically correct objective.  Indeed, Mr. Moyer must be an Obama Kool-Aid drinker.  Or maybe he was drinking something stronger when he wrote his fantasy piece.  Mr. Moyer certainly has a talent for discounting or ignoring the facts: per his own Washington Post poll two-thirds of Washingtonians advocate no name change, but that's not good enough for Mr. Moyer because some hypothetical group of people with a drop of Native American blood in their veins might be offended by a name that has been in use for 80 years.  But as Mr. Moyer has already disregarded private property rights I suspect it was very easy for him to neglect to mention this historical fact in his column.  The fact is people vote with their feet and their wallets and if the hypothetically negative connotations of the name mattered consumers would have rejected the team long ago.  Further, the fallacious idea that a name change would actually increase merchandise sales is laughable on its face: with a losing record (another one of those pesky facts Mr. Moyer consistently ignores) I assure him that no one is running out to buy a celebratory t-shirt regardless of the name.  Mr. Moyer's column would have been more honest--and grounded in a semblance of reality--if he advocated Snyder paying off the supposedly 'injured party' assuming he could actually find them.  That is, I suspect, what they are really looking for.  The fact that Mr. Moyer cannot impose his Utopian ideals on others must cause him, and his boot-licking masters at the Post, a great deal of discomfort.  In my view, his suffering is my just desserts.

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