See Democrats. See Democrats Implode.

This is serious … and hilarious.

Just as the Democrat party’s national convention gets underway this week, out pops a Wikileaks release of hacked Democrat National Committee emails, bringing to light what some of us already knew, because it was so obvious. Now it is undeniable: the DNC, which is required to remain neutral during the primaries, conspired to secure Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee for president, allowing voters to believe there was an actual primary contest underway, when the fix was in from the beginning.

Bernie Sanders, the poor sap, never had a chance.

Sanders charged, throughout the primaries, that the system was rigged against him, a charge dismissed by both DNC and Clinton officials. Now there is no denying ‘Crazy Bernie’ was right all along. This part of the story, as I’ve said, is not surprising, nor is it the story’s biggest lead.

Equally noteworthy is the revelation that some in the liberal media (a.k.a. the ‘mainstream’ media) took part in the conspiracy. They acted deliberately and undeniably to advance Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, in a massive fraud on Democrat voters, and indeed, the voting public at large. The dirty, not so little, secret is that the liberal media have been defrauding their viewing public in this manner for decades — holding themselves out as objective journalists, all the while advancing a liberal narrative.

As predictable as Hillary Clinton’s denial that she had any knowledge of the DNC’s untoward behavior, are various media hounds already performing damage control, attempting to shift the focus away from the media’s involvement, toward implicating Russia in the scandal, and even the Republican party.

Such left-wing spin is all quite predictable, and therefore comical, yet these email revelations remain serious, perhaps even criminal, in nature. We shall see, as more leaks may surface — don’t be surprised if they do — along with more revelations of bad behavior by Democrats and their accomplices.


The Big Liberal Lie

It came to a head with Hurricane Katrina.

I remember watching Fox News and CNN; seeing people stranded on rooftops, surrounded by flood waters that had inundated New Orleans; people left homeless, awaiting rescue, seeking help just to make it through the day, uncertain what the next day would bring. At a point, I asked myself, “Aren’t there any white people here?” It seemed every one of those flood victims was black, and I wanted the disparity explained.

America’s liberal establishment, backed by their media hounds (a.k.a. the ‘mainstream’ media), found a convenient scapegoat in President George W. Bush, and they put the blame squarely on his shoulders. As it turns out, however, the answer is not so convenient for liberals to acknowledge. Because the flood victims I saw on TV were those living in the most vulnerable areas of the city, those most socially and economically marginalized. And in that regard, New Orleans is not unique.

Why have minorities, African-Americans in particular, been left behind in so many ways? How do certain people end up so often living in the poorest neighborhoods, socially and economically marginalized? An answer is found in the imagery of Katrina, but has less to do with natural disasters than with the man-made variety. For those images illustrated the abject failure of liberal policies, and of the decades-long drive to turn America into a welfare state.

American society is now into a third successive generation of liberal welfare policies that encourage people to have children out-of-wedlock. That has resulted in a breakdown of the traditional family structure in many communities, especially among African-Americans. And the problem has become endemic. Recent statistics show that approximately 72% of African-American children are born out-of-wedlock. And children raised in single-parent households, and too often in poverty, are far more likely to spend their adult lives in poverty, in conflict with police or other sanctioned authority, ingested into our criminal justice system, or otherwise socially and economically marginalized.

Our liberal establishment downplays this reality because it points to the big lie they’ve been telling for decades — that a bureaucratic welfare state remains the only hope for society’s disenfranchised. The truth, in fact, is that decades of liberal policies have created a massive government bureaucracy that relies on the victim status, and resulting political support, of the very people it purports to help. Instead of acknowledging this, liberals call for more gun control laws; they decry racist police officers; they call for spending ever more taxpayer money to ever further expand the federal bureaucracy — anything to avoid a serious examination of their own failed policies.

When a politician or media figure tells us that too many guns, too little federal spending, right-wing bigotry and too little government bureaucracy have marginalized America’s racial minorities, they are perpetuating a false narrative. The challenge for conservatives is to reach out to those who’ve come to accept that false narrative, those who’ve been lured into a cycle of dependency, those who’ve been conditioned to expect little from themselves and from society — and to convince them there is an alternative.

Think that’s impossible? Think again. We have a strong weapon on our side … the truth.

What Would Bush Do?

FBI Director James Comey appeared on Capital Hill yesterday, at the behest of congressional Republicans, and testified as to Hillary Clinton’s lack of veracity in her own congressional testimony some months earlier. In response to pointed questions from Rep. Trey Gowdy, Mr. Comey indicated that Mrs. Clinton had misrepresented the facts numerous times regarding the handling of her official State Department emails.

So now, there are calls for a perjury investigation, and one anticipates a congressional referral of the matter to the FBI. Meanwhile, the State Department re-opens its own investigation of the Clinton emails. The response from congressional Democrats is to downplay the controversy and attempt to change the subject. And we are left with a hyper-partisan mess. In short, the matter is far from over, both legally and politically. So, how might this have been avoided?

An answer is found in the example of former President George W. Bush, during the CIA leak scandal, known as Plamegate.  When Plamegate erupted in 2003, then President Bush called for the naming of a special prosecutor, and Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to lead an independent investigation into the matter. This allowed a thorough (some would say overly thorough, but that’s another matter) inquiry to take place, independent of the FBI and U.S. Justice Department, freed from suspicion of any untoward influence by the Bush Administration.

President Barack Obama could have chosen a similar route by calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. But he didn’t.

As with every other scandal during his presidential tenure, Mr. Obama left this matter squarely within the realm of political influence. Such influence surfaced most recently in a private meeting, off the record and intensely inappropriate, between Hillary Clinton’s husband, the former President Bill Clinton and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Only days later, Mr. Comey’s formal recommendation followed, that no criminal charges be brought against Mrs. Clinton, a recommendation quickly accepted by Attorney General Lynch.

All of it highly suspect, hyper-partisan, tainted. Such is Mr. Obama’s legacy.

The Fix Has Never Been More In

Jaws have been dropping since yesterday’s presser by FBI Director James Comey. He used the bulk of that presentation to outline a clear and detailed case against Hillary Clinton for her email related crimes, then ended his comments by recommending no criminal charges be brought against her. And he took no questions from the assembled media hounds.

Mr. Comey’s incongruous, tightly scripted speech leaves many claiming there is one set of laws for the well-connected Hillary Clinton and another for the rest of humanity. Indeed, the ‘rule of law’ in this once great American republic — and the romantic notion that all citizens receive equal justice thereunder — has been decimated. But let’s be clear, it’s not just Hillary Clinton.

One remembers the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 decision on the purported constitutionality of ObamaCare. Chief Justice Roberts began his majority opinion with reasons why ObamaCare ought not pass constitutional muster, then ended his opinion with a convoluted rationale for upholding the ObamaCare statute, as if to justify a pre-determined outcome. That’s awfully similar to what Mr. Comey did yesterday, arguing for another pre-determined outcome. Care to hazard a guess as to who did the pre-determining?

A pattern of obfuscation and outlandishly straight-faced denials has become part of President Obama’s presidential legacy. One cannot be faulted for wondering if Mr. Obama and his people somehow ‘got to’ James Comey. Did they similarly ‘get to’ John Roberts? Did they intentionally lie about ObamaCare in order to get it through Congress? Did they deliberately target conservatives for harassment by the IRS and then lie about it? Did they politically calculate and deliberately allow the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, before they lied about that? Did Justice Antonin Scalia really die of natural causes (feel free, at your own peril, to consider that a sarcasm)?

Nothing seems off-limits to Obama’s cabal, in which Mrs. Clinton is now ensconced as heir apparent, and their consuming pattern of corruption, a pattern deeply rooted in Mr. Obama’s own authoritarian tendencies and his utter ruthlessness in securing his objectives. It is so essential to their conduct that almost no suspicion or accusation of impropriety is beyond belief. And the ‘rule of law’ seems ever more a quaint notion of America’s once illustrious past.