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

Trump's Thanksgiving Cooks MSM's Goose

“I think the media is on thin ice with the American people, very thin ice, and they ought to just … dial it [their obvious attacks on Trump] back.” – Hugh Hewett, conservative radio host on Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Now the election is over the MSM happily assumed their relationship with President-elect Donald Trump would be business-as-usual. Last Monday like turkeys to the Thanksgiving table, the elitist news executives and their figurehead anchors filed into Trump Tower with the expectation of what they hoped to get: continued unfettered access. What they got was taken to Trump's woodshed: a barrage of pointed words for a roomful of unrepentant liars, what The New York Post called a “f***ing firing squad.” Of course, the fact that this meeting was off-the-record did not dissuade these media titans from spilling their guts; probably as soon as they got out of The Donald's earshot. (This instance is yet another example of their constant underhanded dealing with Republicans.)

During the lecture Mr. Trump singled out CNN as the worst offender, but he was generally critical of the press for their widespread hatchet job reporting. Purveyors of liberal doctrine like The Washington Post's Dana Milbank called the meeting “part tongue-lashing, part perp walk.” And why not, given their habitual yellow journalism lacking even the semblance of objectivity?

While everyone is entitled to private opinions, journalism is supposed to be neutral and fact-based. Yet, leaf through any major metropolitan paper: at a rate of 93%, these “journalists” are nothing more than progressive ideologues spouting Democratic Party talking points. Despite eight years of Barack Obama's epic economic and international failures, they have nary a critical word for him. Likewise, they endorsed and defended Hillary Clinton's lawbreaking criminality—even going so far as to fundraise for her! Who but them did everything in their power to promote her (failed) candidacy?

Indeed, Donald Trump bested Crooked Hillary—and her Democratic sycophants and surrogates in the press. In a begrudging moment of clarity The Washington Post's Margaret Sullivan acknowledged:

“He has masterfully manipulated the media for the past 18 months—bullying reporters, garnering billions in free publicity and portraying journalists as part of the corporate structure that must be brought down so that the people can triumph.”

For decades, truer words have not been printed in the Post. Yet, despite her admission Ms. Sullivan's perspective is still way off the mark. This cog of the legacy press laughably believes her profession—as it currently stands—is nonpartisan:

“In fact, U.S. citizens need an independent press more than ever.”

Ah, if only that was so! In reality, the corporate media is corrupted by Democratic collaborators—“unbiased journalist” pretenders—like herself and Dana Milbank. These liberal scribblers misperceive Donald Trump—a truly independent voice for mainstream America—as the “problem” rather than themselves. Therefore, their petulant affect and defiant tone deafness are completely out of sync with our nation's character. As that is the case, how honest or valuable can their reporting be? The answer is not at all.

The reality remains that the journalistic neutrality of their ilk is nowhere present. Ms. Sullivan and her fellow travelers populating the MSM share responsibility and blame for this—not the president-elect. Theirs is classic psychological projection: unrecognized self-reproach. Recall, the Fourth Estate was intended to be generally adversarial to both political parties and government; keeping them theoretically accountable to the people by accurately reporting on their activities. Yet, this function is impossible due to the MSM's fundamental flaw: naked political bias. Even worse, the MSM only attempts to “watchdog” Republicans, but never their Democratic counterparts.

For them, the jaded editorial has become every newspaper story under the guise of “legitimate” news. And although unlikely to reform, they richly deserve Trump's Thanksgiving comeuppance. It's the gander's after election gravy: exposing two-faced media elites as squawking, progressive birdbrains. With only 9% of America trusting them, Trump has rightfully pigeonholed their whole worthless industry. After all, going forward who needs a divisive, anti-American propaganda machine lacking the merest shred of journalistic integrity?

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

Hillary's Three Monkeys Defense

“I know nothing about this. I can't deal with every one of his [Trump's] conspiracy theories.” – Hillary Clinton, following the 3^rd presidential debate on October 19, 2016

Spoken straight-faced by she with whoppers of fish stories that would make Herman Melville—in a boat with Ernest Hemingway—positively green with envy. History recalls another tall tale this spider spun, her paranoid claim of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against hubby Bill during his '90s “bimbo eruptions.” Today, during the 3^rd debate, it's her fantastical claim of “Russian interference” in next month's presidential election. By well-established reputation, this habitual liar says it's so (citing 17 faceless government entities to back up her latest yarn)—so why wouldn't everyone believe her?

Apparently, the only conspiracies Hillary subscribes to are the ones she promotes. Other than that, for her, the modus operandi that works so well for all deluded Democrats is see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil (especially their own).

Tight-lipped Hillary Clinton in her Dr. Evil style Maoist pantsuit “knows nothing” about bused in, violent protesters paid by Democratic operatives to disrupt Donald Trump's rallies. Out of hand she disregards the hidden-camera videos released this week by the conservative group Project Veritas Action. (Apparently only an audio tape of Trump's locker room banter counts.) How easily Mrs. Clinton ignores Democrats' immoral acts, their accompanying discussion of their political dirty tricks; their further disclosure of (Marco Rubio's “non-existent”) voter fraud!

Specifically, campaign consultant Zulema Rodriguez, whose words are highlighted on a video called “Rigging the Election,” (released Monday) naturally claims selective editing of her admission:

“What was omitted and what I constantly repeated to the infiltrators was that my team and I work together to make sure everyone stays safe while exercising their rights. I believe this to my core.”

Speaking of shocks to the core, perhaps she and Michelle Obama could start a therapy group! The fact remains that she collectively received more than $21,000 from three pro-Hillary political organizations per Federal Election Commission records. The threat of her inspired mob caused Mr. Trump to cancel a rally in Chicago last March. Furthermore, Ms. Rodriguez acknowledged that her team “also did the Arizona one where we shut the highway down.” Since when is doing that a protester's “right to be exercised”?

Obviously, Hillary's monkey business minions have been caught red-handed. It remains to be seen if she—the real-life villain out of an Austin Powers movie—will ultimately be brought to justice. Despite Mrs. Clinton's post-debate denial, the only thing really not known here is the future. Given her fondness for high collared pantsuits, will wearing a big house orange jumpsuit be so different? Just this scintillating possibility is worth electing Donald Trump president on November 8th.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Marco Rubio: WikiLeaks Pipsqueak

“These leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it. Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today, it is the Democrats. Tomorrow, it could be us.” – Marco Rubio to ABC News on October 19, 2016

So the issue for good ole boy Marco isn't the Democrats' blatant political corruption (that any honest person would condemn), it's that Julian Assange via WikiLeaks had the nerve to disclose it? Given Mr. Rubio's elitist attitude, is it any wonder why average Americans are as disgusted with do-nothing establishment Republicans as they are with lawless progressives? In the final analysis, besides outsider Trump, what's the difference?

Of course, per habitual liar Hillary, her unauthorized servers—both illegal, and likely hacked—aren't a problem. Yet, what did the stolen DNC emails show? Surprise, surprise: more of two-faced Hillary Clinton's double-dealing. Specifically, her wink and smile extortion racket of the one percenters. Six figure speeches to Wall Street banks privately pledging a gangster's style protection and open borders while publicly demonizing both. Thus, she cashes in on their financial support while simultaneously claiming to be down-with-the-struggle like regular folks? Not a chance.

Another revelation of the hacked emails is widespread DNC election tampering. A coordinated effort by Mrs. Clinton's campaign—and disgraced, fired DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (reemployed by Hillary directly) —to deny surging Socialist Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination. So, why is pea-brained Mr. Rubio's first instinct (and primary concern) sitting on his “little hands” related to Democrats' dirty political laundry? (Indeed, if the situation was reversed, they'd chop at the bit to use such leaked information as political currency against the GOP.) Therefore, in psychological terms what is Mr. Rubio afraid of? Given the Halloween season, what deep-seeded skeletons are hiding undisturbed in his closet?

Here's the key to this weasel: “Tomorrow, it could be us.” Well, RINO Rubio, if you are so similarly self-serving and immoral as Democrats why should your ilk hold the reigns of power? The Florida senator breezily claims there is no election fraud in his state, but what if he is the fraud? Apparently, the learned senator is unfamiliar with a 2012 study by the Pew Center on the States entitled “Inaccurate, Costly and Inefficient: Evidence that American Voter Registration Systems Needs an Upgrade.” That report indicates:

• Approximately 24 million voter registrations, or 1 in 8, are invalid or substantially inaccurate
• Some 2.75 million people are registered to vote in multiple states
• 1.8 million dead people are still on the active voter rolls

So beyond the pivotal electoral outcome of the sunshine state what of the other 49, Mr. Rubio? What of a more recent survey that indicates that 13% of illegals confess to fraudulent voting? And what of Democratic-run cities like historically crooked Chicago where the dead unfailingly vote for Democrats every four years?

How can Marco Rubio claim closed-eyed ignorance? Precisely as Obama and Hillary, he, as they, sees not a smidgen of corruption. Shockingly, this fop even parrots Mrs. Clinton's laughable narrative that “foreign governments” are interfering in the presidential election. The actual problem remains infinitely closer to home. “Little Marco” need only borrow a mirror from his progressive friends on Capitol Hill.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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