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

Spinning Trump Conspiracy Theories

“Let me be very clear: We do not have evidence of fraud. We do not have smoking guns.” – Green Party rainmaker Jill Stein, who received a whopping 7.33 million windfall after Election Day

For contrast, Jill Stein raised 3.5 million for her unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign. That's less then half of what she received to challenge the voting totals in three states (pivotal to the election itself, but not to her prospects). She finished dead last of four, garnering zero electoral votes and only 1% of the popular vote or 1,316,040. Therefore, Ms. Stein can't win. As there's no apparent problem with the presidential election, why should a minor candidate with virtually no standing contest the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (where Trump's actually up 131 votes)? Likewise, why should Democratic mouthpieces in the press accuse Russian hackers of nebulous “interference”?

Both developments are narratives designed to promote the fiction that Donald Trump's election is somehow “illegitimate”. (Think of “Dubya” of Bush/Gore 2000.) Jill Stein—same as Bernie Sanders during the primary season—is a political straw man for Hillary Clinton. Like socialist Sanders, will newly flush shill Stein buy beachfront property with the leftover recount money?

Put nothing past progressives who call themselves “Democrats.” In truth, they are big government fascists. (Historically, the “switch” occurred when LBJ took over, using the country's grief over JFK's assassination to push his own anti-Kennedy agenda.) Further, attempts to undermine the Electoral College—members voting for Trump have reportedly received death threats—are just the latest example of their treasonous anti-Americanism. Leftists don't respect elections or democracy. They are elitist authoritarians who will do anything for their god: preserving political power.

There's nothing to fear from these divisive and diversionary tactics. They're just sour grapes. Liberals' litany of dirty tricks—via the MSM's trumped-up propaganda—will echo to a griping murmur after the inauguration. Moreover, their efforts to malign and marginalize will be self-defeating. After all, given their repeatedly false election forecasts, who are they but out of touch naysayers unworthy of attention or trust? Even The Washington Post admitted:

“Trump was right all along, and we, the political class, were flat-out wrong. Trump effectively channeled anger and anxiety into a movement.”

Innuendo spread by dishonest journalists (read: Democratic partisans) is the only problem here. Their influence—like their unsubstantiated claims—will fade like shadow: as immaterial as the outlandish stories they peddle.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

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

Puppet Hillary's Blame Game

During the 3^rd presidential debate Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton laughably claimed that self-made billionaire, Donald Trump—a political outsider—was a puppet rather than herself:

“He'd [Vladimir Putin] rather have a puppet as president of the United States.”

“No puppet, no puppet… You're the puppet,” was Mr. Trump's honest reply.

Excuse me, but which scandal embroiled candidate made a dirty U.S. uranium deal with Russia? Which same one blatantly broke American law and fostered potential espionage? As with everything two-faced Hillary says the truth opposes her own words and deeds. Via Charity-gate, Mrs. Clinton did the former; with Server-gate she did the latter. Thus, at the debate she falsely accused Trump of her own crimes. This behavior is classical psychological projection: her own deep-seeded guilt blamed on her innocent political opponent.

Beyond a worthless apology, Hillary's blame game never includes herself. Mr. Trump's call to Russia to release her illegally destroyed emails (if they have them) isn't espionage. He has nothing to do with what was left unprotected or has likely been stolen. First, wasn't it Hillary who intentionally had unauthorized, private servers set up in the first place as Secretary of State? Second, wasn't it Mrs. Clinton responsibility to follow the law forbidding such extraneous storage of classified information? Third, since she knowingly ignored the rules, doesn't she own the consequences of hackers and potentially “interfering” foreign governments in next month's election?

Hillary has aided Russia, the foreign government she now publicly demonizes. In reality if anyone is a hypothetical puppet of Putin's, it's Hillary Clinton not Donald Trump. Specifically, her State Department approved the Uranium One deal which insanely ceded Russia control of 20% of American produced uranium for a fat donation to her pay for play sham of a charity, the Clinton Foundation. (That's the highly prized “yellow cake” used in nuclear weapons.) What's to stop the Kremlin from sharing the extra supply with their Middle East allies, the nuclear ambitious Iranian Imams? You know, the same bearded fellows who finessed a toothless, Obama-approved nuclear deal that virtually guarantees them the bomb within the next decade? The answer to all of the above is nothing at all.

Moreover, if the Soviets do have her destroyed emails, Mr. Putin has a treasure trove of top secret material with which to blackmail the normally paranoid and self-obsessed Hillary. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton would waste critical years in office (vital to the continued solvency of America) looking only to save her own skin. Indeed, the next president must contend with the escalating, unsustainable 19.7T debt. (That sounds like a wheelhouse challenge to a businessman, and job creator, like Donald Trump.)

Yet, Hillary's not up to that, or anything constructive. Crooked Hillary will be embroiled in ever worsening scandals, and future Nixon style cover-ups. Just like her impeached hubby Bill, she'll remain in an endless cycle of political damage control. Recall, her already well-established track record of incompetence and lawlessness. While the country seizes in a hellish Clinton Administration death spiral, how would this divisive rabble-rouser lead—except disastrously—over a social and economic cliff?

It doesn't take a dummy to know who's better for America's future. If ventriloquists were Wall Street bankers, speechifying “Hillary six figures” would be their open borders, amnesty-promising marionette. Brassy Donald Trump should not be confused with any of that. Unlike the shifty one percenters who finance Mrs. Clinton's corrupt candidacy, Donald Trump's a captain of industry who can't be bought. He already has all of the fame, wealth and power anyone could want. America needs his tell-it-like-it-is 'can-do' optimism—not an elitist figurehead for foreign and domestic special interest groups, and corporate masters.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

'For Debbie Dingell, a life primed for politics' (Ben Terris, Style, Washington Post)

Since when is a longtime trophy wife of a U.S. Congressmen entitled to his seat?  Just because he has held the seat for 58 years and she has conveniently been married to the old man for 33 years (nepotism), knows people/attends lots of midday cocktail parties (luncheons), takes 'serious looking' photo-ops and has worked for GM, a company with deep business ties to her family—no potential favoritism there—doesn’t make her objectively qualified to take over.  Good to know such obvious nepotism of the ruling Democratic elite is so blatantly celebrated by The Washington Post.  Her married name might be Dingell, but given her questionable track record she sounds more like a dingleberry to me.

Postscript: Democrat Debbie Dingell has won the 12th District House seat to succeed her husband, John, who is retiring as the longest-serving member of Congress (November 4, 2014)

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