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

Fuzzy Words Hide Shady Leftists

“I was not aware of any Communists at Fort Roach*, although there were several gentleman of the extreme left … who called themselves 'progressives', a term I subsequently learned was the Party's code word for true believers.” – Edmund Morris, Pulitzer Prize winner and author of “Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan”

*The First Motion Picture Unit of the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) during World War II (installed at the dormant Hal Roach Studios in Culver City, California) in the 1940s

As disclosed by biographer Morris, the label progressive is leftist code for an adherent of communism. Yet, communism's collectivism diametrically opposes American principles embodied by individual liberty. In short, such oil and water philosophies don't mix. What's misleading is the root word of progressive happens to be “progress”. So, it's easy to assume that both terms mean the same good something. (After all, in this technologically driven age, who's not in favor of advancement?) Yet, progressivism is destructive in its practice, and backward in its orientation. In reality, it fails everywhere it's tried. By almost every objective measure (with the anomaly of a flourishing Wall Street), President Obama's progressivism was ruinous for America. Specifically, the economic albatross of a record-shattering 9.3 trillion added to the national debt was no accident. Likewise, leftist leadership turned oil and diamond rich Venezuela into a hellhole where basic necessities, like toilet paper, are scarce. Democrats typically use such nebulous, good sounding language to conceal their real anti-American intentions. For example, their knee-jerk advocacy of “investment” in some fashionable cause. That's just doublespeak for raising taxes and growing government. Such poison pills only undermine our nation's solvency, and future prospects. For these wastrels, it's better to rule in a leftist hell—propagated by their political pandering and cultural divisiveness—then serve in heaven as pro-American constitutionalists.

In the same vein, political movements with the word “Democrat” in them are usually totalitarian: as the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea. Certainly, no lover of civil rights, and human freedoms, are they. For proof of Kim Jong-Un's liberalism, who can forget the tragic fate of American student 22-year-old Otto Warmbier? For the college prank of foolishly attempting to steal a propaganda poster this future ivy leaguer was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Fifteen months later he was returned to the United States in a vegetative state. This coma—the result of likely torture—led to his premature demise; a young man in full flower cut down. What a waste of potential, what a senseless loss of life.

Speaking of destroying life of accused agitators on foreign soil, how about Barack Obama's Orwellian-style “disposition matrix”? This was the former president's secret kill list: a database of suspected terrorists to be dispensed with, either targeted in drone strikes, or captured and interrogated. How is that nihilistic system not equivalent to the barbarity of the Kim regime? In fact, some of Mr. Obama's quarry were even American citizens! The horror is that guilt or innocence didn't matter. The accused were deprived of their lives without due process: that means no right to legal representation and a fair trial, and no judgment by a jury of one's peers. From on high, what a megalomaniac thrill to play God!

That's not the only similarity between the leadership in North Korea and today's Democrats. Both groups use demonizing rhetoric against their perceived adversaries. Specifically, reported by FoxNews.com on March 7^th, the former instruct their people to call Americans bastards. How is Hillary Clinton's repudiation of Trump supporters as a basket of deplorables any less hateful and derogatory? The 2016 presidential election ended over 16 months ago, but she's still spewing venomous blame. In India, this foul-mouthed “feminist icon” smeared the married, white women who didn't support her. Outrageously, she implied they were mindless chattel: incapable of acting independently of their husbands, bosses or sons. So much for this skin-deep “champion of women”.

With all leftists, freedom of thought is vehemently suppressed because it departs from the Party's official position. On every issue under the sun, conformity of perception is paramount. What liberals say is “right” in this moment can be completely the opposite of what they stood for yesterday. Even writers David Nakamura and Ed O'Keefe of the highly partisan Washington Post acknowledged:

“In 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Secure Fence Act, a bill that authorized the construction of hundreds of miles of fencing along the border. That legislation was approved with broad bipartisan support, including, in the Senate, by such Democratic luminaries as Barack Obama (Ill.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), now the Senate minority leader.”

In 2018, that's The Donald's border wall. Yet, so afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome are they, progressives automatically oppose what they previously supported—under the previous two administrations. As masters of the political flip-flop, hypocrisy and self-interest define them (read: Crooked Hillary).

Thus, proponents of the left—regardless of their particular stripe—demonstrate a jackbooted impulse to dominate others. In common, each ruling class controls via a herd mentality. Unchecked, the Worker's Party of Korea (WPK) can govern by overt force. Meanwhile, dissembling Democrats weaponize their words to incite protests. Sometimes these “social justice” movements metastasize into mob violence (read: Black Lives Matter). Yet, either by force or by fearmongering the left advances its un-American notions. These exploitative elites preach inclusivity while repressing and actively dividing.

These true believers, as Hillary and Obama, are oblivious to patriotic Americans' views or problems. They're insulated creatures of the Washington establishment; buoyed by their hard left extremism and access to governmental influence. In truth, they care nothing for their fellow citizens' freedoms (particularly the Second Amendment), and actively work to subvert them. As a parallel, their mindset is epitomized in “Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith” (2005) when the Republic becomes a dictatorial galactic empire:

“So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause.” – Padmé Amidala (played by Natalie Portman)

As “Democratic” leader Kim Jong-Un is a scourge upon the world stage, progressives are a cancer upon the American body politic. Acting and speaking with the same anti-U.S. malevolence is clear—regardless of what commonality their fuzzy labels are designed to obscure.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

How to Rebuild a First World Economy

“We've indulged in this fiction that we can build a vibrant economy by deregulating the financial sector, and cutting taxes, and putting off investments in things like infrastructure and education and our kids. But we can't anymore. And now we have to ask the question about what really went wrong.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), from Rana Foroohar's “Makers and Takers” (2016)

To solve this pressing and systemic problem, the last place to look for insight is to any big government progressive like Elizabeth Warren. Likewise, to her fellow travelers of Congress's spendthrift establishment (of both parties). In truth, the insulated beltway bubble has no clue regarding what fundamentally remains wrong with America's economy.  Ms. Warren's so-called solution, “investments in things,” is code for increased federal deficit spending. Yet, the government is flat broke: thanks, in large measure, to the already-tried-and-failed policies of Barack Obama, and Ms. Warren's fellow Democrats. In fact, over President Obama's two terms the average annual GDP growth was a measly 1.48%. Another disgrace was his virtual doubling of the nation's debt by a whopping $9.3 trillion. Funding wasteful schemes like his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (more commonly known as the Economic Stimulus Act) injected $787 billion into the marketplace, but to no avail. The economic malaise persisted because ill-equipped people—making wrongheaded decisions—were in charge. Simply put, Obamanomics conclusively demonstrated that Washington cannot tax, borrow or spend the nation into prosperity.

Politically, what's the definition of insanity? Electing the same types of people doing the same things, but expecting a different outcome.  (Thus, perhaps the main reason Donald Trump was elected president, in 2016, is neatly explained.)  More to the point, on an economic level, what's the definition of insanity—other than doubling-down on what has been done previously? Thanks to President Trump, and the promise of Republican tax cuts, the tide—superficially—has started to turn. However, a record-setting Wall Street is not the same thing as a booming Main Street. After all, Wall Street is based upon the return on investment by stockholders. That's rather far removed from real-life factors like creating homegrown American businesses, generating highly skilled domestic jobs or providing Americans opportunities to advance up the socioeconomic ladder. So, the true test of a strong economy is an expanding, upwardly mobile middle class. Yet, this all-important demographic has been declining for more than 40 years:

“After more than four decades of serving as the nation’s economic majority, the American middle class is now matched in number [read: statistically equivalent to] by those in the economic tiers above and below it. In early 2015, 120.8 million adults were in middle-income households, compared with 121.3 million in lower- and upper-income households combined, a demographic shift that could signal a tipping point, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data.”

For context, in 1971, 61% were in the middle class compared to only 50% in 2015. This disturbing trend depicts the downward spiral rotting the fundamentals of our economy from the inside out. What is it that we did better in those prior years that we're not doing now? Back then, did we not produce competitive products—products that truly satisfied one or more customer's needs better than what was produced by international competitors? In other words, did American made products and services not dominate global markets—and did that not naturally result in sustained economic prosperity for the majority of our society?

As our middle class is clearly hollowed out, that's not happening today. Indeed, the anecdotal evidence is literally in everyone's face. Are the devices that populate your daily existence constructed by American hands, or others? (On a related note, how about the manufacturer of your vehicle?) After all, what customers chose with their wallets is meaningful. Thus, one can reasonably infer that a common sense reason exists as to why American businesses are not patronized as they were by past generations. Logically, at its root is the reality that the consumers' needs are no longer being met so they have looked elsewhere. What's also apparent is that, generally speaking, American companies are being outcompeted by their international counterparts for the world's largest market share.

How is that happening?  It's because U.S. businesses rely upon financial shell games designed to generate profits on their balance sheets. This has the superficially positive effect of artificially buoying the stock price (benefiting executives' salaries and stockholders' investments), while inversely gutting the real-world ability of a company to compete in the global marketplace. If that is not the case, why do American corporations widely participate in cost-slashing measures like corporate inversion, using inferior components in U.S. products (read: bailed out GM's Ignition Switch Scandal) and outsourcing jobs?

Contrast that mind-set with fundamentally producing products and services that excel at satisfying one or more customer needs for a true competitive advantage in the worldwide market. Instead, U.S. companies engage in modern-day finance-based parasitic behavior: absorbing weaker firms, often stripping them of their employees and selling off divisions for quick infusions of cash to elevate the “almighty” stock price. In popular culture, this dynamic was immortalized by the contentious exchange between corporate raider Edward Lewis (Richard Gere), and embattled “old-time” business owner Jim Morse (Ralph Bellamy) in “Pretty Woman” (1990):

Morse: “Mr. Lewis, if you were to get control—and I don't think you will—but if you did, what do you plan to do with the company?”

Lewis: “Break it up and sell off the pieces.”

Morse: “I'm sure you'll understand I'm not thrilled at the idea of your turning years of my work into your garage sale.”

Lewis: “At the price I'm paying for this stock, Mr. Morse, you are going to be a very rich man.”

Morse: “I'm rich enough. I just want to head my shipyard.”

Morse represents the only viable direction by which America can rightfully regain her former glory as an economic superpower—exploiting technology more effectively than the competition for products and services that have a true competitive advantage in the marketplace—technology-based planning. By contrast, Lewis is just manipulating the finances to produce a profit. He doesn't create anything of value to society; he exploits capitalism simply to further enrich his moneyed class.

As an analogy, following “Lewis's lead” is where so many U.S. corporations have gone wrong. In truth, such “monkey business” only produces an artificial competitive edge, and being artificial it is not sustainable.  Eventually the company—as the country—runs out finances to manipulate and everything comes crashing down.  A true competitive advantage in the worldwide market—as demonstrated by countries like China—is a result of exploiting the technology more effectively the competition. This is mandatory for businesses to thrive in the 21st century—and beyond!

How does one achieve this illusive key to lasting success? For that answer, one must look to Ronald Reagan's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, circa 1985. Remarkably, this forward-thinking president was troubled by the overt financialization of the U.S. economy, and specifically, its adverse impact on American competitiveness. In response, Reagan launched a then classified initiative known as the Socrates Project with the mission of transitioning the U.S. back to technology-based planning—and away from the type of financial shenanigans mentioned above.  It was so astonishingly effective that it far surpassed what countries like Russia, Japan and China were executing or could execute in the foreseeable future.

In turn, the Socrates Project developed the Automated Innovation System. Today, it can map global technology—high-tech, low-tech, “no”-tech –in real time. In function, it operates like a digital four-dimensional chessboard showing foreign organizations' and countries' plans for exploiting worldwide technology.  Specifically, it details the full range of present and future technology opportunities, and constraints, that can be exploited by U.S. public and private organizations for the essential competitive advantage to bring true and lasting economic prosperity back to America.  How wonderful would it be for President Reagan’s vision to be finally realized in 2017!  If spearheaded by the Trump administration, private industry and government can adroitly outmaneuver foreign competitors in the exploitation of worldwide technology at will.

Furthermore, the Automated Innovation System dictates how funds, manpower and natural resources etc. must be deployed to generate the all-important competitive advantage.  Specifically, the System shows how money, and the wide range of other resources, should be appropriately allotted, while simultaneously detailing up-to-the-moment strategies that block competitors with equivalent aims. Vitally, it operates in the time frame before a new product or service comes to market—from a few months to several years. That's important because this ability eliminates the sudden emergence of so-called disruptive technology that, at present, consistently catches flatfooted American corporations unaware.

How do we revitalize the American Dream as it was enjoyed by previous generations? For starters, that means running businesses as they were traditionally conceived: to serve society rather than exploit it. Beyond that, U.S corporations’ primary goal should be on dominating the 21st century technological landscape.  That guarantees the long-term profitability they single-mindedly strive for.  In real terms, that’s only achievable by continuously satisfying the evolving domestic and foreign consumers' needs and wants with highly competitive American products and services. (To be frank that means not cutting fiscal corners in order to save pennies.)  Hence, exponential profit becomes a given: a natural result technology-based planning as developed by President Reagan's Socrates Project. No other path will enable us to truly “Make America Great Again.” Unfortunately, the time to make these foundational shifts is perilously short. The country's very survival as a First World power hangs precariously in the balance.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Bushes Polarize Like Progressives

Given the unanticipated election of Donald Trump, it's difficult to determine which establishment faction is more perturbed, liberals or old guard Republicans. Despite clear and unambiguous Clintonian corruption, neither “side” seems capable of respecting the democratic process when one of their own is not in the winner's circle. Thus, to them, the people's will—and, by extension, the fate of the nation be damned!

The childish cattiness that has resulted is expected of Democrats. They're myopically focused on reelection, but little else. What political party wouldn't be furious over losing over 1,000 officeholders during the Obama era—including, stingingly, the presidency? Yet, what's unseemly is for GOP stalwarts to publicly chastise their party's current standard bearer. For example, George W. Bush said, “This guy [Trump] doesn't know what it means to be president.” How's that not calling the kettle black? What happened to the generations-long tradition of remaining silent regarding one's presidential successors? Likewise, what of Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment never to speak ill of another Republican? So much for honoring “the rules” of political discourse.

In truth, if Mr. Bush was going to “go there” he's waited eight years too long—and picked the wrong target. Recall, as a go-to excuse for Barack Obama's own multitude of failures, he conveniently “blamed Bush”. Specifically, Mr. Obama called his predecessor's deficit spending “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible”. For that demonization, the younger Bush has reason to be incensed. Not at Trump, but at the Democrat's hypocrisy for running through almost twice as much as he: 4.9 versus 9.3 trillion. If that's not egregious enough, what of Mr. Obama's cash payment of 1.7 billion to the pro-terrorist Iranian regime? Why was “W” as silent as a church mouse when actual presidential mismanagement—and malfeasance—transpired? (Is his anti-Trump fervor sour grapes for thwarting his brother Jeb's presidential prospects?)

As was widely reported, shockingly 41 voted for Hillary Clinton, and 43 voted for “none of the above.” How out of sync can two former Republican presidents be? In a recent speech “W” obtusely said, “At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together.” With their polarizing rhetoric on full display, isn't the Bush clan doing precisely that? Furthermore, doesn't their brand of divisiveness have the same negative impact as that of any progressive?

Naturally, the Bushes are free to squawk, and uselessly wring their hands. So, too, is the rest of the unsettled GOP establishment. However, piling on is a fool's errand that only makes matters worse. After all, thanks to the hard left MSM, untruths and distortions about Trump already run rampant. And unlike either Bush, at least President Trump has the courage to fight back against these false narratives rather than “dignifyingly” taking them. (Defeated Mitt Romney epitomized that failed philosophy.)

That both former presidents surnamed Bush would now speak out against a sitting president shows disdain for established decorum, and the voice of the electorate. With the nation coming apart at the seams during the disastrous Obama years, they collectively made not a peep. Apparently, for these beltway blue bloods, unjustly trashing Trump is a favorite pastime. That the Bushes partake shows their loyalties truly lie with the insulated political class (regardless of party affiliation) rather than with the voters. Moreover, as their sentiments are indistinguishable from that of Democrats, party labels are rendered meaningless. Herein, to any clear-thinking person is proof of the necessity of electing Donald Trump. The political pendulum has indeed swung far away from dynastic families—and, in 2016, an entitled insider. That maddening reality—as much as the brash billionaire himself—is deliciously driving the D.C. ruling elite daffy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

Identity Politics Fouls American Melting Pot

Given the range of human behavior and perception, it's a social and romantic myth that “opposites attract.” In fact, it's likely a subconscious tendency for people to associate with others based upon superficial commonalities like ethnicity. All value judgments aside, its root is likely an ancient survival instinct. (Something that has nothing to do with hate or racial discrimination.)

This impulse emerges from one's family unit, building outward to larger circles of shared interests via common language and cultural experiences. In turn, these “specialized” factions form the matrix of vibrant communities from the local to the state level and beyond.

Still, there always remains some psychological tension between the individual desire for independence—versus any group's desire for uniformity. However, even in the case of identical twins, diversity is still seen in distinctive personalities. Thus, achieving a balance between all of these forces—where difference is as respected as sameness is embraced—is the foundation of any healthy and prosperous society.

In the modern age, freedom of thought, lifestyle and religious expression defines the West. Specifically, this is why America is the envy of the world: why people from distant shores—and diverse backgrounds—flock to live here. Yet, today, the vital mechanism that makes all of this work is under constant attack by Democrats' progressivism. Their words imply: 'come to the U.S. and impose your origin country's values even when they diametrically oppose our traditions'. Hence, Garrett Hardin, Ph.D. (1915 - 2003), ecologist and social scientist, cautions:

“Diversity within a nation destroys unity and leads to civil wars. Immigration, a benefit during the youth of a nation, can act as a disease in its mature state. Too much internal diversity in large nations has led to violence and disintegration. We are now in the process of destabilizing our own country. The magic words of destabilizers are ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’.”

Positive differences—same as new ideas—remain wonderful, and necessary things. Indeed, both add “spice” to any human interaction or evolving relationship. But, identity politics preys on those dissimilarities, exploits them for the ruling class's self-centered political ends. So, liberals subtly promote their Big Lie of the “bad American”: the dominant culture (read: white folks) perpetually victimizes minority groups because of their differing external appearance. Scurrilously, Democrats imply a deep-seated intolerance in our daily lives that does not exist. To add insult to injury, they pretend that those they claim to champion are somehow helpless or inferior. In reality, anyone can realize the American Dream with hard work, and a little luck.

Capitalism is the basis of America's economic strength—embodied by the good, but often stylistically mercurial President Trump. For context, his attitude of U.S. victory contradicts that of another recent political upstart: socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Unlike Trump's motto of “America First”—based upon private sector investment and expansion—Sanders peddles big government intrusion as the “solution” to society's woes. In retrospect, as a harbinger of failure, was it any surprise that Bernie was swept into office during the 110^th session of Congress: when polarizing Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became House Speaker, and the legislature fell under total Democratic control?

Since that time, what of the nation's metastasizing debt—nearing 20 trillion under liberals' (and RINOs') inept ministrations? Does any clear-thinking person still buy the Washington swamp's narratives? For one, President Ronald Reagan certainly didn't. Back on August 12, 1986 he said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

Absurdly, “helpful” progressives act as if all non-whites have a built-in ax to grind because of their minority status. So, if something goes wrong for them, fault is always “elsewhere”. In fact, identity politics only gains traction because liberals, via the MSM, manipulate the low-information voter into believing he or she is aggrieved. As a case and point, if this is not so, why are they so busy fracturing the country over mute and harmless Confederate statues—otherwise completely ignored for generations?

Democrats' fiery rhetoric is stirring America's melting pot to the boiling point. Most eloquently, Suzanne Fields of The Washington Times recently wrote:

“Now we’re embroiled in domestic wars of a different kind and the younger generations challenge democracy from within, even marching against free speech, making the protection of the fragile First Amendment ever more difficult.”

When free speech is repressed—as it is now by unhinged leftist mobs—an angry and frustrated environment encourages the generalized use of fists rather than words. Remember, these purveyors of alienation want chaos, open borders, lawlessness, and most of all, tribalism. What's absolutely alien to them is the American motto e pluribus unum: out of many, one. The underlying reason for all of their destructive vulcanization is simple: a happy electorate votes for Republicans.

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