“The Simpsons” Predicts Trump Presidency!

As life imitates art, why shouldn't the indecent brawl that was the 2016 presidential contest mimic the comedic classic “The Simpsons?” As the longest ongoing sitcom in television history, this generation-long laugh factory has lampooned every element of the American “nuclear” family. As an example of thematic depth, the buffoonishly lovable Dad, Homer, works as an incompetent donut munching safety inspector for a decrepit nuclear power plant. Turns out, this just-wholesome-enough comedic institution has moved into the unusual arena of political prescience.

Although “Simpsons” creators intended many Springfields, as art is a shared experience, the viewing audience fortuitously assumes the show's setting to be the heart-shaped Ohio (politically: so goes this state so goes the nation). Therefore, one marvels at the synchronicity that an obscure reference to a “future”  Trump presidency—in a 2000 “Simpsons” episode—would reflect the most clownish and unconventional political landscape in modern times.

Has “The Simpsons” inadvertently forecast the course of America's political future? That answer is yes! Interestingly, in that same episode, daughter Lisa, now grown, is a female U.S. president. (Undoubtedly, Sen. Elizabeth “'1/32' American Indian” Warren (D-MA) is already gearing up for her own failed presidential run in four years. See ya then, Pocahontas!) Yet, that “Lisa” won't be bawling Hillary (despondent over perhaps her orange jumpsuit future).

Indeed, fate has turned—and “The Simpsons” has mirrored an unlikely reality! The hungover glitterati made the grave mistake of believing the deeply flawed electoral forecasts of their Starbucks drinking compatriots in the MSM. To all of them, the popular vote map resembling a beautiful Jackson Pollock painting is something abhorrent. From their bloodshot eyes, red radiates from coast to coast (with only little drips of blue in urban centers where they commiserate). From the “blue” elitist enclaves of Manhattan and Hollywood, the stentorian wail from these progressives is Homer's famous frustrated catchphrase: D'oh!

All humor aside: Thank you America for choosing president-elect Donald Trump as our 45^th commander-in-chief.

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

In Washington’s shadow goes Mr. Brown. Colorfully.

Partisans are hysterical.  How dare a red senator, Scott P. Brown, vote for a blue bill!  No matter that this Democratic jobs measure with Republican-minded tax cuts actually may be good for the American people.  That Mr. Brown’s action betrayed the myopic vision of his fellows is indicative of why a guy like him is so badly needed.  After all, a public servant that places the people’s interests above his own political self-interest is indeed a rare precedent.  George Washington would be tickled red, white and blue.

Postscript: The denizens of Massachusetts recovered from their ever so brief hangover of sanity by electing Elizabeth Warren, a progressive Democrat, who laughably claimed during her successful campaign against Brown that she's of Native American ancestry ("1/32").  Rumor has it that she has presidential aspirations and is inclined to run if Hillary doesn't.  (Hillary is.)  I am confident that Mrs. Warren has fit right in with Harry Reid and the good-old-boy (now minority) Democratic Senate.  Mr. Brown has since put down roots in New Hampshire, ran for the Senate, but was narrowly defeated by incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen in the general election. I wish him the best of luck whatever the future holds.

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

'From the bluest of states, a red senator of a different color,' Dana Milbank's column, Washington Post)