Ryan Leaving Washington Broke(n)

What should be said of Wisconsin's Paul, the Unwilling: the earnestly mannered, fresh-faced, doe-eyed House Speaker? During his three years in charge, this “policy wonk” spends as frivolously as any progressive—while piously opining about conservatism. For context, when Mr. Ryan became a representative in January of 1999 the U.S. debt was only $5.56 trillion. Given the nation's deeply underwater finances—that ballooned over his 19-year career (and spanned four U.S. presidents), Ryan's truly a Republican In Name Only (RINO).

Specifically, he's the embodiment of incompatible opposites. Mr. Ryan took the top congressional job in October of 2015—while publicly proclaiming he didn't want it. Likewise was his chilly embrace of then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. As the standard-bearer, the President was never the beneficiary of Mr. Ryan's largesse: extended to all Democrats. Regarding support of Trump, this highest elected Republican famously said, “I’m not there right now.” Contrast that to Ryan's sunny treatment of his liberal colleagues in his first speech as the 62^nd Speaker of the House:

“But let’s be frank: The House is broken. We are not solving problems. We are adding to them. And I am not interested in laying blame. We are not settling scores. We are wiping the slate clean.”

In retrospect, Mr. Ryan's loyalty was always to the entrenched Washington establishment (read: the swamp), not to the brash billionaire businessman become president or his populist constituency.

Let's look briefly at this Speaker's “report card”. When Mr. Ryan assumed his leadership role on October 29, 2015, the national debt was $18,152,590,112,385.69. Upon his retirement announcement on April 11^th, the figure was $21,121,833,941,447.86. That's an increase of $2.97 trillion in two years and 5 ½ months. Per Gallup, Congress's approval rating (Nov. 4-8, 2015) was 11%. As Gallup's figure is not yet available, the RealClear average is currently 13.2%. That's a meager improvement of 2.2%. Schizophrenically, Mr. Ryan reforms taxes like a Republican while squandering like a spendthrift Democrat. What else explains his rubber-stamping a budget-busting 1.8 trillion dollar spending bill early in his tenure (December 2015), barely averting a government shutdown in March (with another $1.3 trillion in expenditures) while previously passing tax relief (December 2017)? Given his track record and fiscal results, that's an F.

While Paul Ryan basks, taking his self-congratulatory victory laps—only his myriad failures weakening America will be his legacy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Trump: Our Generation's Reagan?

Roughly ten months in, how is it not presumptuous for anyone—especially a conservative—to proclaim in print that Donald Trump is “no Reagan”? Perhaps Washington Times columnist Robert W. Merry should wait another three years before making any sweeping pronouncements?

What's Mr. Merry's basis for this flawed, and premature, conclusion? The failure of the entrenched Republican Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare. After seven years of the establishment's broken promises, that's the fault of Mitch “expectations are too high” McConnell, Paul “not ready” Ryan and the logjam created by anti-Trump Republicans (read: John McCain and the Washington swamp).

For starters, Mr. Merry needs a refresher course in civics 101. Specifically, only Congress has the authority to make (or unmake) law. That's the separation of powers, which means the legislative branch is autonomous to any U.S. president's desires (like campaign pledges). Hence, Mr. Merry's claim, “The Donald is failing to win over the public with bold and clear political messages” is pure hogwash. What of his Reaganesque “Make America Great Again,” and “America First” slogans? For the record, Mr. Trump is vigorously accomplishing those aims: with renegotiated trade deals favorable to the U.S.; his exit from the job-killing Paris climate accord; illegal border crossings plummeting by 76% (as reported by the Washington Times); and future changes to tax policy to promote domestic job growth. In every case, Mr. Trump's message remains unambiguous and crystal clear. So, too, are his actions. Put a new GOP health-care bill on his desk guarantees his signature.

Indeed, the president has been chopping at the bit since January 20! Why, then, does Mr. Merry write, “The fault lies primarily with the president”? That's a simpleton's answer by someone obviously afflicted with “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. Unfortunately, Republican presidents habitually get chastised for events beyond their control. For instance, despite successful federal efforts to provide relief to hurricane ravished Puerto Rico, mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz outrageously criticizes the president for her failure to distribute boated in supplies! With her city in ruins, what else is an incompetent local Democrat to do than pass the buck? Thus, for face-saving distraction—and the bonus of an anti-Trump narrative—the hard left MSM is happy to advocate propaganda as fact. That's echoed by Robert Merry's overtly cynical column. Still, as he's determined to blame a president for Obamacare, why not its namesake: Barack Obama? To that end, why not hold the responsibility-phobic Democratic Party accountable for their 2010 takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy: with zero Republican support. That's the unmentioned context for the dysfunctional polarization Mr. Merry blithely glosses over. Its reality predates Mr. Trump's emergence on the political scene by years (if not decades). Therefore, how is it fair to blame someone for a systemic problem that's inherited?

In truth, the Republican establishment bears equal responsibility with intransigent Democrats. Both groups populate Congress, not the White House. Specifically, per Reuters, the GOP's roughly 60 unsuccessful attempts to repeal or alter Obamacare so far. The fact remains that Republicans have held control of both houses since January 3, 2015. Therefore, their repeated failures to change this law is not President Trump's fault. Like Mr. Reagan, he must work within the framework of the Constitution—and the inert personalities of career politicians more interested in playing politics than getting positive results for the American people.

Ultimately, the underlying conflict unrecognized by Mr. Merry is one of style over substance. One suspects he would be content with a soft-spoken RINO (Republican In Name Only) like Mitt Romney or a go along to get along establishment figure like Jeb Bush. Or perhaps a fresh-faced dreamer parroting idealistic platitudes designed to pacify the most sensitive among us, but accomplishing little beyond pretty PR (read: Paul Ryan). Fortunately, none of those people reside in the Oval Office. The real question here is can Donald Trump act as a 21st century Ronald Reagan while not embodying “The Great Communicator's” particular gifts to persuade with charismatic warmth, and often pointed humor? That answer to the open minded is, of course, yes! As a case in point, the same edition of the Washington Times reported: “Banishing red tape: Trump the ‘least regulatory president’ since Reagan, study finds”. So, there's proof that a certain old guard prognosticator can't ignore. Any person so stuck in ways of the past cannot embrace an evolving present. For this Robert Merry should be pitied, but not heeded.

To some, Donald Trump's unconventional style—as a plain-speaking, brassy New Yorker—is disconcerting. But it's actually a strength that will likely checkmate those who would do our nation serious harm. Our continued survival is frankly aided by the new paradigm of his unpredictability. What's needed now is this deal making brawler to be his own man, as Reagan was. Not another polished, weak-kneed elitist offering a failed past as prologue.

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

Paul Ryan: Nicest Swamp Creature

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In other words, due to one's high status that person can claim anything without fear of being challenged by those who know less. So it is with Washington Times columnist Richard W. Rahn's muddled analysis of Paul Ryan (R-WI), an 18-year veteran of the Washington bog. Given this writer's flowery assertions, however, he sounds like the newly appointed cheerleader of the Republican excuses brigade! To that end, his doe-eyed opening sentence speaks volumes:

“It is tough to play hardball with your friends.”

Has Congress metastasized into a millionaires' social club? Are Mr. Ryan's fellow representatives supposed to be playboys for him to pal around with? If that's now the prevailing mind-set on Capitol Hill, it certainly explains a lot! Specifically, Gallup's record low approval rating for Congress in 2017: a measly 16%. And is that statistic any surprise given their collective failure to repeal Obamacare—after seven years of broken GOP promises? Thus, is it reasonable to sing Paul Ryan's praises as he's one of the primary figures responsible for the ongoing legislative morass?

That's not Pauly's fault, says Rahn. The real trouble is he's just so darn agreeable! Is affability suddenly a personality flaw in politics, or in the business of governance? If so, will someone send Mr. Ryan “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie? Recall, in the natural world that honey's sweetness attracts many more flies than vinegar; so it is with human nature. In fact, didn't President Ronald Reagan epitomize a sunny disposition—and didn't that trait make him more effective as a leader, not less so?

Naturally, the reality of Speaker Ryan's inherent inability to lead is quickly glossed over:

“[He is] not particularly good at managing a large number [read: 240 of 435; one vacancy] of independently-minded people.”

For his unsuccessful cat wrangling of only his party (and half of the legislature) a premium is earned: a $223,500 annual salary. That's a whopping $49,500 more than the House's rank and file. (By comparison, President Trump runs the entire executive branch for $400,000 a year, per Title 3 of the U.S. Code; donating his whole salary, save one dollar, to charity.) Mr. Ryan has not followed suit—and given his lack of positive results—perhaps he should.

But wait, Rahn claims, Mr. Ryan real aptitude is as a “policy wonk”. If that's so, why did he capitulate to the Democrats' two trillion dollar debt-busting budget rather than opposing it? Likewise, is he “highly accomplished” for losing control of the budgetary schedule as Mr. Rahn admits? For context, when Speaker Ryan assumed his leadership role on October 29, 2015, the national debt was $18,152,590,112,385.69. As of this writing, it has increased to $20,173,505,864,062.25. After almost two years, why are all of the economic indicators under his “expert” tutelage still going in the wrong direction?

Beyond the escalating debt, proof is seen in the pitiful pre-Trump 2% GDP. By those measures alone, Mr. Ryan would have been fired in the private sector long ago. After all, as Speaker he determines the agenda; same as his chamber controls the nation's purse strings. And despite his hollow-sounding protestations about not initially wanting the post, the fact remains that he took it. In this way, he seems to cultivate a regular guy “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” persona. Still, the fact that Mr. Rahn doesn't see through this slick veneer is troubling. It means his favorable depiction of Mr. Ryan is untrustworthy. As that is the case, perhaps a fictional one can illuminate his real-life subject better:

“Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.” – Dr. Jeffrey Pelt, National Security Adviser, played by Richard Jordan in “The Hunt for Red October” (1990)

Now that sounds like a realistic baseline with which to evaluate any longtime D.C. insider. Yet, unlike Dr. Pelt, one would never expect Paul “not ready” Ryan to be so candid about his own history of mealy-mouthed capriciousness regarding his faux support of President Trump.

Hence, in the Trump era, the American electorate has had their fill of nice guy RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who embrace the status quo by subverting “M.A.G.A.” policies. By his record and his actions, that's who Paul Ryan really is. That's also precisely why our results-driven president cut a three-month extension with the Democrats (for government funding, and Hurricane Harvey relief). And why not? When has that fresh-faced facade of the do-nothing Republican establishment ever been a friend to him? Indeed, championing such incompetence demonstrates a profound obliviousness to modern-day political dysfunction—that even a clear-eyed low-information voter can see.

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

Washington Swamp's Russian Fever

Supposed “Russian interference” is the Democrats' morning-after poison pill for the results of the 2016 election. From November 9 onward, this narrative has been intended to undermine Donald Trump, and hamstring his “Make America Great Again” agenda.

Unfairly, the liberal MSM has rabidly embraced wild-eyed supposition based upon unsubstantiated innuendo. Its underlying purpose is a face-saving measure to distract from the complete repudiation of progressives' eight years of failures. This effort also had the immediate benefit of painting responsibility-phobic Hillary—and her Democratic fellows—as victims of an “international conspiracy”.

Given this contrivance, one is reminded of Mrs. Clinton's outrageous January 27, 1988 claim of a “vast right wing conspiracy” against her presidential hubby for his adulterous affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Then as now, a pattern of pure fiction spun as a distraction for Clintonian misdeeds. Specifically, during the last election cycle, what of Hillary's less than truthful answers; her highly suspect decisions related to her Server-gate scandal; her influence-peddling Charity-gate dealings; her obvious deficiencies as a politician?

Unfortunately, the entrenched Washington establishment has used this political smoke and mirrors as a feeble excuse not to pass meaningful legislation. That means both parties. On one hand, Democrats take up wasted space in Congress, filling the air with anti-Trump rhetoric. On the other, Republicans sit on their hands, ignoring their languishing seven-year pledge to repeal and replace ObamaCare. These dysfunctions epitomize “the swamp” President Trump is working mightily to drain.

Ah, the idle political class—typified by poster boy Paul Ryan (R-WI). He stated on May 17, 2017, “It is obvious there are some people out there who want to harm the president.’’ As he acknowledges this is the case, why not put a stop to months of nebulous, fruitless inquiries? With no evidence—and no end in sight—why do GOP enablers facilitate a huge distraction from the successful agenda the president ran on? Is it political cover for their own fecklessness?

For historical context, recall Mr. Ryan's acceptance speech as House Speaker on October 29, 2015:

“But let’s be frank: The House is broken. We are not solving problems. We are adding to them. And I am not interested in laying blame. We are not settling scores. We are wiping the slate clean. Neither the members nor the people are satisfied with how things are going. We need to make some changes, starting with how the House does business.”

Doe-eyed Ryan promised a “fresh start,” but delivered more gridlock. Conciliatory lip service notwithstanding, what of his results? Likewise, what of his Senate counterpart Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)? Both seem to have an innate aversion to taking the political heat leadership requires. In large part, this ire comes from collectively intractable Democrats. Yet, where is their consensus building within GOP's ranks? Given the rejection of the status quo articulated by the last election cycle—why hasn't either man forcefully defended the president? Why haven't they told Congressional Democrats to stow their obstructionist carping? As a touchstone, why wasn't the ObamaCare repeal bill ready for President Trump's signature on day one: January 20, 2017?

After all, the Republicans ran against the healthcare debacle for years. Precisely as establishment Democrats, Congressional RINOs played politics to gain legislative majorities. Now, after six months of a new administration and GOP dominance in Congress, what do Ryan and McConnell have to show for it? The American Healthcare Act (AHCA) barely passed the House, 217-213 and may not pass in the Senate. How's that for snatching failure out of the jaws of victory? Indeed, if McConnell's minions don't coalesce behind the president's policies forthwith, they will be “swamped” by Democrats eager to replace them in 2018.

It's not the Trump campaign that needs attention here, but Hillary Clinton herself. Specifically, as then Secretary of State, she rubber stamped the Uranium One “deal” in which 20% of U.S. domestic uranium production was ceded to Kremlin control. In exchange, the now defunct Clinton Foundation received four donations totaling $2.35 million. A real Soviet windfall! If that's not blatant enough, Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with government ties promoting Uranium One stock. So, who has Russian ties and likely colluded? That's clear to anyone not subscribing to the Democrats' dishonest “red scare”. A politically expedient bogeyman spawned by do-nothing Republicans and corrupt liberals' wishful thinking.

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

“Winning” In D.C.'s Swamp?

“[T]his was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” – Democratic nominee Barack Obama's victory speech on June 3, 2008

Thankfully, the 2016 presidential election “shattered” heir apparent Hillary Clinton's White House prospects; perhaps forever. Mercifully, that means no Clinton promised “Obama third term”. America has finally been liberated from these twin progressive scourges. His was an utterly failed record: defined by divisive rhetoric—an almost Messianic cult of personality—and delusions of grandeur. (Specifically, Obama desired to dismantle the goodness embodied by “apple pie” Americanism.) On the other hand, her's is endless lies and scandals (strongly suggesting lawbreaking and corruption). Today, America is in far better hands, but only in relation to the grizzly alternative. Clearly, shifting from a dogmatic leftist ideologue to a populist outsider is an improvement. Yet, what remains is the unyielding quagmire of beltway elites (of both parties) coupled with Trump's surface narrative of “winning”.

For Mr. Trump's showiness, let us not be reminded of smirking selfie-obsessed Barack Obama. A superficial politician of illusory “accomplishments” (and hard leftist transformation who Bill Clinton pegged correctly as “an amateur”). Obama—the worst president of the modern age—was defined by a fatiguing number of inauthentic, self-congratulatory victory laps (between 333 rounds of golf per CBS reporter Mark Knoller). What's more egregious, his exchange of likely traitor Bowe Bergdahl for five high-level terrorists, his U.S. Iran payoff of 1.7 billion or his U.S.-Iran nuclear “deal” that wasn't? In every case, geopolitical adversaries were coddled and emboldened. Meanwhile, Obama claimed legacy-defining “successes” while America suffered domestically and receded further from relevancy on the international stage.

One hopes that the election of a real winner—a billionaire capitalist epitomizing the American Dream—will not follow suit. Indeed, doesn't such a person know the difference between Obama's show business tenure—and brick and mortar substance? Unfortunately, thus far, that remains to be seen. Specifically, the ObamaCare Lite “Republican” health-care bill, such as it is, finally squeaked by the House of Representatives. As it still faces the daunting and uncertain hurtle of passage in the Senate, it's hardly a done deal. Therefore, why did President Trump recently declare victory in the rose garden flanked by a phalanx of clapping, smiling GOP flunkeys? Obviously, pro-American deal making is necessary. Yet, isn't the devil in the details? Why are they being glossed over by this president in the same careless manner as the disastrous last one?

In fairness, Donald Trump has quickly discovered that confronting the status quo (read: “draining the swamp”) of the beltway bubble is a Herculean task worthy of that demigod's twelve punishing labors. This progressive/RINO “new budget compromise” funding the government through September is a measure precisely antithetical to the new president's priorities. Why then do they bankroll America's primary abortion provider Planned Parenthood? (For context, this organization was founded by Hillary Clinton's hero Margaret Sanger: an unapologetic racist and eugenicist. Thus, the reason it's overwhelmingly found in minority neighborhoods is no mystery.) Likewise, the GOP supposedly opposes sanctuary cities. Yet, those lawless enclaves—that regularly endanger local citizens' lives (read: San Francisco's Kate Steinle killed by a repeatedly deported illegal alien)—are fully funded too. Aren't Congressional Republicans supposed to be pro-life in all its guises?

Related to criminal border jumpers and the unnecessary cost of lives, what of Trump's pledge to build a U.S.-Mexican wall? Of the Republican response, Breitbart astonishingly reports:

“The fine print in the bipartisan 2017 budget plan includes several paragraphs designed to prevent Donald Trump's deputies from building a border wall with the reserve cash routinely stored in agency saving accounts.”

So, there's zero allotted to the meaningful construction of a long overdue physical barrier? By comparison, contrast that to the $295.9 million funneled to bail out Puerto Rico's bankrupt Medicare system. How is giving more money to island wastrels a good idea? Isn't that the definition of flushing good money after bad? What does this two-faced Republican majority actually stand for—besides themselves?

How else does one explain their intentional disregard of President Trump's election-winning agenda? Hence, a long-standing political pattern emerges from the murky bowels of the political swamp. In practice, Nancy Pelosi's priorities are indistinguishable from Paul Ryan's. Put simply, they're all entrenched Washington “swamp creatures”! Remember when this newly minted House Speaker promised a “fresh start”? Right out of the gate, what did he deliver? He rubber-stamped the progressives' 2 trillion dollar budget! Today's budgetary expenditures are just more of the same.

Paul Ryan and his weak-willed ilk habitually capitulate to Democrats despite their “leadership” position. Then, amazingly, victory is universally declared. Both sides crow about something “good sounding” at first blush. Yet, ultimately, their shortsighted choices are unmistakably detrimental in the well being of future generations. You know, those yet unborn left to pay the tab of their irresponsible largesse. In truth, what are these out of touch elitists really doing—besides rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (read: the iceberg that's America's escalating 19.9 trillion dollar debt)?

Speaking of the massive, what's a bigger ego-trip then being a U.S. president? Still, Mr. Trump must resist Washington's insulated grandiosity. (A temptation so vulgarly indulged by his preening predecessor.) As a lesson, Ronald Reagan never engaged in such self-glorifying impulses. In this regard, he should consider William L. Jenkins's words as a template:

“President Reagan always gave the credit to the American people and American ideals. He treated his job as a valuable temporary loan from the American people, a loan that should be respected and returned with dutiful appreciation.”

Thanks to the ballast of the intractable D.C. swamp, the country remains in economic dire straits. That fragile state is equally due to spineless establishment Republicans and obstructionist, spendthrift progressives. For lasting success, Mr. Trump needs to continue to champion sensible, conservative policies. That means bringing needed doses of main street reality to heedless establishment power. Specifically, Congress should be held accountable with the veto, the bully pulpit and at the ballot box. Echoing Obama's absurdist practice of premature—or completely unwarranted self-serving “wins”—is a worthless photo-op. As valid as the ex-president's campaign hype that he could “heal” the planet, or “control” the rise of the oceans. That's the stuff of patients typically found in mental wards. Or is it the decision-makers in Congress? By their results and popularity, who can tell a difference?

Average citizens have had enough of swamp creatures: especially their hollow claims of “victory”. That much is clear. Despite our elected officials' rosy proclamations, rank and file Americans aren't close to experiencing legitimate wins. That's a vital distinction President Trump must make for his—and America's—enduring success. It's the only standard that means anything—and the only way to secure the future of our teetering nation.

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

Misbehaving Presidents' Mixed Messages

“We don't win anymore. When was the last time we won? Did we win a war? Do we win anything? Do we win anything? We're going to win. We're going to win big, folks. We're going to start winning again, believe me. We're going to win.” – President Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 24, 2017

Isn't winning a great message to hear from a sitting U.S. president? Contrast that to the Obama years, plagued by gargantuan failures and losses. For example, most telling was the actual level of U.S. unemployment: 95 million able-bodied Americans absent from the workforce. (The U.S. Department of Labor repeatedly claimed the rate hovered around a measly 5 percent.) Such a diet of consistent falsehoods included Obama's famous, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it.” That whopper earned him left-leaning Politifact's Lie of the Year in 2013.

Interestingly, misrepresentation is the defining characteristic of modern-day Democratic presidents (and failed hopeful Hillary Clinton). All that's now required is a slick persona, a tenuous grasp on truthfulness and the gift of honeyed words earnest in their bewitching power to distract the public. With Hillary's hubby, his failings were of a personal nature, embarrassing peccadilloes highlighted by an affair with a then 22-year-old intern. Remember Bill's infamous claim, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss [Monica] Lewinsky.” (The scandal rocked his presidency, but didn't end it. Ultimately, he received a pass because adultery was successfully spun as a private matter. However, his public disgrace affected his ability to govern much more gravely then was acknowledged at the time.) Also detrimental to the nation, were Barack Obama's numerous untruths. Like Clinton, he was abetted by a fawning press—and a foolishly forgiving electorate.

That same latitude is never granted to their Republican counterparts. Remember, George H. W. Bush's broken pledge, “Read my lips: no new taxes”? That one flip-flop cost him his 1992 re-election bid. By contrast, Barack Obama, not Ronald Reagan, was the true “Teflon president” . His big government tenure was “transformative” in all the wrong ways: obtrusive, overregulated and overtaxed (read: the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ObamaCare mandate because its legal basis is a tax!). Combine those systemic problems with a ballooning federal government, wasteful programs, deficit-spending and virtually doubling the nation's debt: a record-shattering 9.3 trillion! That's more in Barack Obama's eight years than all previous presidents combined (read: 212 years from Washington (1789) to Clinton (2001))!

In retrospect, the pre-election electorate was ravenous for a new voice, specifically an unapologetically pro-American one. (Hillary Clinton isn't that. Essentially, she promised a de facto Obama third term.) Enter the plain-speaking Washington outsider, a billionaire capitalist, who brashly articulated all things wrong with progressives in government. Central to that message was the concept of winning: obviously for himself and theoretically, one hopes, for the country. Today, how is that goal achieved by threatening the Tea Party's Freedom Caucus? Ironically, he attacks the very group he should champion:

“The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” — President Trump's tweet at 9:07 AM on March 30, 2017

Under any circumstances, it's frankly nonsensical to ever conflate conservative Republicans with militantly obstructionist Democrats. Such groups are naturally philosophically opposed: political oil and water! For a campaign promise thwarted, he calls out the Freedom Caucus for rightfully scuttling Paul Ryan's disastrous “ObamaCare Lite” replacement? Thus, in the superficial name of “winning,” isn't that precisely like burning a village to the ground in order to “save” it?

The political landscape is, and remains, ripe for meaningful change. However, as of late, Mr. Trump's appealingly razor sharp campaign rhetoric is not living up to his muddled actions. To again reference the same CPAC speech:

“I'm here fighting for you and I will continue to fight for you. The victory and the win were something that really was dedicated to a country and people that believe in freedom, security and the rule of law. Our victory was a victory and the win for conservative values.”

A self-proclaimed guiding principle negated by his recent rant against House Republicans who stand for that precise thing! Immersed in the Washington swamp, allied with House Speaker Paul Ryan, is it possible he's lost sight of what conservatism means in concrete terms? After all, words are insubstantial compared to policy and practice. For his part, Mr. Ryan talks an equally good game. (Recall, he's been in Congress since 1998. That's 17 years before he assumed leadership of the lower chamber on October 29, 2015. For further context, for the last 7 years, the GOP has promised to repeal and replace ObamaCare.) With his reputation as a policy wonk, where has Mr. Ryan been all this time? His Johnny-come-lately response was a rushed bill—with the Republican brand simply slapped on—that fundamentally lacked bipartisan consensus: no Democratic support and not enough Republicans to pass the measure.

The American Health Care Act should have been a free market solution to health-care, but it wasn't. Hopeful for a “win,” President Trump mistakenly backed Ryan's loser: a bureaucratic 3-phased shell game that would have kept the government behemoth in place with superficial changes like substituting tax breaks for government subsides. So, it's wrong to scapegoat the Freedom Caucus for their lack of support. This debacle—this legislative “Rosemary's Baby”—is all Paul Ryan's mad creation. For this mess, he should be replaced forthwith. To that end, someone from the Freedom Caucus would be fitting.

Thus far, Mr. Trump's dealings with Congress have not lived up to his appealing CPAC rhetoric. The author of “The Art of The Deal” need not play things so fast and loose by vilifying other Republicans. While he owes the Republican establishment nothing, he would be wise to adopt the following Reaganesque Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any conservative. To do otherwise artificially divides the GOP against itself. And given their demonstrated lack of effective leadership, they need all the help they can get.

Polarizing allies won't achieve the right results for the American people. Still, Trump's willingness to work with everyone is exactly what President Reagan did. In that regard, “The Great Communicator” effectively went directly to the American people over the heads of his detractors (as The Donald does with his well-conceived tweets). Yet, Mr. Reagan never used the bully pulpit to literally bully anyone. Therefore, killing his Tea Party darlings in this way is something “The Gipper” would never do. That's not winning; it's reactionary, shortsighted and ultimately self-defeating. 

Lasting success for America equals a staunchly conservative agenda. To get there, Mr. Trump needs to appropriate the cohesive framework of principles embodied by the Freedom Caucus. Going forward, embracing them—rather than Paul Ryan's ilk—would greatly aid his cause. For instance, they would make an ideal legislative sounding board while he makes deals and takes constructive action. As modern history clearly demonstrates, only Democrats get away with misbehavior and mixed messages. Those types of mistakes are invariably fatal to the prospects, and success, of any Republican president.

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

Air Force: Pelosi Party Planes

“Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline.” – Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch President

Back in 2008-10, was Nancy Pelosi a grandma groupie for the boozer band Guns N' Roses? Were they her constant travel companions for 90 documented flights—many domestically from Washington-California—and others abroad? What else explains spending $101,000 in “in flight” services on Air Force jets over those two years? That's almost $1,000 per week—just in food and drink alone. Naturally, only premium spirits for then-Speaker Pelosi and her unknown entourage! To name just a few brands consumed: Courvoisier cognac, Grey Goose vodka, Jim Beam and Jack Daniels whiskey, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bombay Sapphire gin and Corona beer. And why shouldn't this ruling class elitist be catered to when utilizing the Air Force as her own personal travel fleet?

Recall, Ms. Pelosi’s net worth is $100 million. Yet, why should she pay for this “free” government perk once at her beck and call? (A disclaimer: as second in line to the presidency, the House Speaker is technically permitted use of government-chartered jets for private travel.) In any case, why shouldn't this modern-day Marie Antoinette take advantage of the taxpaying suckers stuck with her “queenly” (read: 2.1 million) bills? Likewise, for the American peasants, but never for “Travelin' Nan”: inconvenient commercial airline schedules; time-consuming connections and delays; long passenger lines; luggage searches; airport check points, pat-downs and/or security wanding; a coach seat fit for a sardine—and the “bonuses” of stress and hassle with one's meager packet of peanuts and a soda!

Despite the flak, fast-forward to today. This entitled crone still helms the Democrats as House Minority Leader. Tellingly, Nancy Pelosi's 2011 Republican successor, John Boehner (R-Ohio)—and the current officeholder Paul Ryan (R-WI)—wisely swore off such an extravagance. At least for domestic trips, that is.

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 Agenda, Legacy On Life Support

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” – President Obama to former House Republican Whip Eric Cantor on January 23, 2009

Fast forward to the 2016 election: how the arrogantly smug have tumbled from Mount Olympus. The final firewall to preserve our republic from Mr. Obama's big government socialism—and his would-be successor Crooked Hillary—held with the surprise election of billionaire capitalist Donald Trump. Now, Mr. Obama's signature law—as well as most of his anti-American legacy—is headed to the trash bin of history.

Washington Times journalist Kelly Riddell's insightful historical analysis of Democrats' identity politics and voting patterns undone by their radical policies—and widespread economic failures—was marred by a seriously erroneous assertion. Regarding ObamaCare, she mistakenly wrote “virtually” no Republicans supported the March 2010 government takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy. The truth is that none—that's zero—of the 178 Republicans voted for the legislation. Ms. Riddell implied “some” making her otherwise excellent column murky.

It's easy to see why even a seasoned pro like Ms. Riddell gets confused. With gutless Republicans—cowed like sheep during the disastrous Obama years—it's often tough to tell the difference between them and progressives. In 2015 under RINO House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), the GOP capitulated to Democrats with the passage of a two-pronged 2,242 page debt-busting 1.8 trillion spending behemoth. Like liberals, Mr. Ryan traitorously pushed America to the brink of economic ruin: nearly a $20 trillion debt (almost half accumulated solely during Barack Obama's presidency). Even worse, the expenditures funded rabble-rouser Obama's dystopian priorities. The highlights include:

• Division F: Allows work permits, entitlements, tax credits and federal benefits for 700,000 illegal aliens; and does not prohibit funding of Barack Obama's unconstitutional executive action (his 2012 de facto executive amnesty for “DREAMers” known as Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA))
• Revives and expands a controversial provision of the H-2B visa program (quadrupling visas for unskilled guest workers to more than 250,000 while in effect denying Americans employment). In the Senate this failed legislation was promoted by Marco Rubio's Gang of Eight (bankrolled by fascist billionaire George Soros who also finances Black Lives Matter anarchy)
• Division B Title II: Funding sanctuary cities like San Francisco (where Kate Steinle was killed by a criminal illegal alien), and killing zone Chicago (where former Obama flunky Mayor Rahm Emanuel recently pledged to ignore federal law, and publicly thumbed his nose at president-elect Donald Trump)
• Division H Title II (Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)) and Division K (Department of State) contain unrestricted appropriations which oversee domestic refugee admissions (including border jumpers, and resettled migrants from Jihadist regions of the world)
• Ryan’s bill does not penalize foreign countries that refuse to repatriate criminal aliens, or counteract Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson's policy of freely releasing criminal aliens back into society and shielding entire categories of them from immigration laws
• Ryan's Omnibus eliminates hard-fought GOP spending caps funding his predecessor Boehner's budget deal with Obama—raised the debt ceiling through March of 2017—and increases spending by $112 billion over two years
• Ryan's bill fails to provide funds to complete the 700-mile double-layer border fence that Congress promised the American people

Despite Paul Ryan's often lofty rhetoric—and the little “R” by his name—this renominated House Speaker is a spineless sell-out. Beyond a lip service pledge of a “fresh start,” Ryan misused the House's vital power of the purse to perpetuate more of the same: Mr. Obama's anti-American “transformation.” Yet, thanks to the pro-America electorate on Election Day all is not lost. Soon there will be a new big dog in town (in the form of president-elect Donald Trump) and one confidently anticipates an instantaneous about-face from 'not ready yet' two-faced Paulie.

Therefore, what's now crystal clear is that overreaching Barack Obama's “pen and phone achievements”—and progressive agenda—are finally on the chopping block. They hang precariously not from Damocles' sword, but from the tip of “45's” Montblanc and a Mike Pence corralled godsend of a Republican Congress.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Forgettable, Regrettable Republican Turncoats

“I want my chance to fail as miserably as the Mitt Romney campaign failed. Romney lost eight of nine swing states, won 6 percent of the black vote and only 27 percent of Hispanics. I want my chance to do as poorly.” – Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump’s new campaign manager, making light of establishment Republicans humiliating losses in the past two presidential elections

Despite a seemingly endless litany of scandals and policy failures at home and abroad, the only reason why Barack Obama was gifted a second presidential term is because some 4 million conservatives stayed home on election day. In retrospect, they were convinced the Romney-Ryan ticket wasn't loyal to Republicans, and time has proven this assessment true. How else does one explain Mr. Romney's violation of Ronald Reagan's “11^th Commandment” never to speak ill of fellow Republicans? Yet, his error is far more insidious than that. Perhaps for spite at the rejection of his own 2012 candidacy, Mr. Romney has done all that he can to publicly thwart the overwhelming Republican choice in 2016:

“Frankly, I think we have a good reason to believe that there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes. I think there’s something there. Either he’s not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is or he hasn’t been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn’t been giving money to the vets or to the disabled like he’s been telling us he’s doing.”

Without a hint of irony, this oblivious “gentleman statesman” parroted the same scurrilous charge (non-payment of income tax) against Donald Trump that was wrongly leveled at him by the smarmy former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). From the slander-shielding Senate floor on August 2nd, 2012, Reid claimed:

“As we know, he [Romney] has refused to release his tax returns. … So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not.”

Of course, such statements were all lies. After Obama's reelection, Mr. Reid smugly rationalized his dishonesty to CNN's Dana Bash: “He [Romney] didn't win, did he?”

November's upcoming presidential election is a simple binary choice—without a third option. (After all, that was the purpose of the robust primary season and 16 Republican candidates.) Regarding the clear winner of that process, Donald Trump, establishment Republicans fall into three equally unacceptable camps. The first is Mitt Romney's outright criticism. The second is exemplified by “not ready” Paul Ryan's coy, tepid and waffling support. The third is the Bush Family's silence (a non-endorsement conclusively demonstrated by two former U.S. presidents—Republicans both—who boycotted their own party's convention). One and all, these are the actions of self-absorbed turncoats. Anything less then full-throated support of record-breaking Donald Trump is de facto support of Hillary Clinton: the most crooked politician ever to be within a hair's breath of the Oval Office.

Much as insulated Republican elites would dearly love a face-saving third option to hide behind, there isn't one. Regardless of party affiliation, they have been utterly corrupted by the rarefied air of the beltway bubble. Therefore, in function, they are no different from Democrats. These are servants of the status quo; and that's what scandal-immersed Hillary guarantees: an Obama third term. Indeed, why would they advocate for an outsider when that posture inherently threatens their own power bases? They are precisely what is wrong with the GOP.

This absolute tone deafness to the people's suffering (under the disastrous Obama years) neatly explains the Trump phenomenon. So, their quiet support of Mrs. Clinton is no mystery. To a person, these entrenched RINOs have forgotten their purpose as representative voices for average citizens. The Bushes, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan (and their entitled ilk) have been at the pinnacle of American political power. Unfortunately, by their collective behavior they are ingrates, demonstrating no honor or patriotism to our country when power is not within their greedy mitts. Instead, they nurse petty, personal beefs with Donald Trump rather than standing with the change-demanding electorate. Thus, these “public servants” do only what's good for them: America's future be damned. And if Hillary Clinton is elected, it will be.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

“Catty” Romney: Democrats' Dupe

Mitt Romney has joined the Bushes' sour grapes chorus. Same as Jeb this election cycle, Mr. Romney is obviously still smarting from 2012—and his own failed presidential bid. Like the Bush Family—and his former RINO running mate (now House Speaker Paul Ryan)—Mr. Romney seems determined, for sheer spite, that Donald Trump should share his same loser's fate.

Ironically, Mitt Romney is drawing from the same bag of Democrat's dirty tricks used against him. Recall the false charge of not paying taxes (for more than a decade) was insanely parroted by current Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Yet, this Republican fop told Fox News: “I think we have good reason to believe that there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes. I think there is something there.” Even if true—and the facts are presently unknown—isn't that something the opposing party is supposed to disclose?

Astonishingly, this dope's diatribe doesn't end there. Mr. Romney has also accused the Republican presumptive nominee of naked discrimination: “Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America.” This is unsubstantiated slime from a “fellow Republican” who states: “I wish everybody in the Republican Party had rejected Mr. Trump and chosen someone else.” That's a contemptible attitude.

In retrospect, given Mitt Romney's “character,” is it any wonder that 3 million conservatives (with instinctual cold feet) avoided voting for this weasel? More to the point: why does the GOP habitually eat their own? Democrats never publicly criticize each other. Furthermore, why is it that establishment Republicans completely ignore the will of the people who elect them? As a case and point is undermining Donald Trump, the voters 2016 standard bearer. Why have the Bushes and tag team Romney-Ryan betrayed the electorate?

For his part, Mr. Trump has not earned tepid primary victories, he's achieved resounding ones. Among a field of 17 other impressive candidates, The Donald won 37 state contests, and a record-breaking 13.4 million votes. Finally, there's a bulldog on the political landscape: a fervent defender of all good things American. Yet, these self-important, indulgent alley cats do nothing but spray and hiss at the loss of their own influence.

As a result, these loyal party (not people or country) apparatchiks are de facto Hillary supporters. A non-vote for Donald Trump is a vote for his corrupt, insider opponent. No other reasonable conclusion is possible. The latest illustrative example of Republican misconduct: a backroom deal to dump Trump at the convention has been gleefully reported by The Washington Post. These entrenched elites are precisely what is wrong with our political system. That's why an outsider like Donald Trump is so essential come election day in November.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976