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

Virtuous Hands with a Gun

“What actually stops an evil psychopath is what we saw on Sunday—a good guy with a gun.” – Jordan Stein, spokesman, Gun Owners of America

Would the massacre have happened if the congregation of the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas had clung as tightly to guns as their Bibles? On Sunday, in a bizarre echo of Sayfullo Saipov's Halloween rampage in New York, suspect Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, brought death into a house of worship. Like some villain straight out of the slasher flick “Scream,” he was outfitted in black body armor and a skull mask. Within this sacred space, this Grim Reaper killed 26 innocents and wounded 20. Thirty miles east of San Antonio, in the worst mass shooting in Texas history: about 4% of the town's population (reported as 683) were slain.

Since time immemorial, that's what civilized people call acts of evil. Ultimately, Mr. Kelley's true problem was his homicidal impulses—expressed as externalized rage. Therefore, holding responsible the inanimate object, that was his tool of choice, is a simplistic response. So too is blaming the law that criminals habitually disregard as somehow “insufficient”. In that vein is the imperfect background check that inadvertently allowed Mr. Kelley access to the firearm he utilized (read: The Air Force failed to provide the FBI with the shooter's criminal history). And despite this unfortunate bureaucratic blunder, where does individual accountability factor into this latest bloodbath?

In reality, almost anything physically imposing can be used as a weapon. For example, just last week in New York a zealot screaming “Allahu akbar” misappropriated a rental truck killing 8 and injuring 12. Likewise, at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, South Carolina on August 12, a third unhinged miscreant, James Alex Fields Jr., killed local protester Heather Heyer, 32, and injured 19 others with his Dodge Challenger. If guns are truly the systemic “problem” here—as gun control advocates repeatedly parrot—why does Chicago persist as an annual killing field despite the strictest gun laws in the nation? And why aren't these same critics ignoring the unfettered freedom to buy cars, and rent trucks? After all, don't all of the above potentially serve an evildoer's murderous design?

As the 18th century philosophical father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke famously remarked, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” To that end, a good Samaritan interceded on Sunday in Sutherland Springs. That small town hero gaining national attention is Stephen Willeford, 55. Synchonistically, he's a former National Rifle Association instructor who confronted the attacker, wounding him twice (in his Velcro covered side despite protective plating). As light dispels darkness, Mr. Willeford repealed villainy despite his fear, and the inherent danger. As he told local affiliate 40/29 News in Fort Smith-Fayetteville:

“I think my God, my Lord protected me and gave me the skills to do what needed to be done, and I just wish I could have gotten there faster.”

In this regard, mere mortals beg to differ. This faithful defender got to the scene so quickly he arrived barefoot. Alerted by his daughter of the sounds of a firearm discharging, Mr. Willeford removed his own rifle from its safe, loaded a magazine, and ran across the street to the church. Standing behind a pickup truck for cover, he exchanged gunfire with the escaping interloper. He even shot through the open driver's side window of Mr. Kelley's fleeing Ford Expedition SUV. At a stop sign, Mr. Willeford then flagged down a 27-year-old motorist, Johnnie Langendorff, and a high-speed highway chase ensued. En route the younger man called 911. Eventually, their pickup caught up to the gunman's SUV. Apparently, the assailant started driving erratically. He pulled over to the side, seeming to slow down, then accelerated again until he hit a road sign, lost control and flipped his truck which landed in a ditch. Mr. Langendorff pulled over, and ducked down. Meanwhile, his heroic companion exited the vehicle, planting his rifle on top of the pickup's hood. Keeping a look out, Mr. Willeford yelled for his adversary to get out of his truck, but all remained still. When law enforcement arrived on the scene, they confirmed that Devin Kelley had committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

Separated by time, specific circumstances and geography is the fact that guns in legal and responsible hands actually preserve life. This is also true of another hero, New York police officer Ryan Nash, who subdued Islamic terrorist Sayfullo Saipov; and Charlottesville police who subsequently apprehended suspect James Fields. Indeed, the loss of life is a terrible tragedy—particularly in situations initiated by the radicalized. For resolution, what demands society's focus is the discounted evildoer himself, not the distraction of his method. Philosophically to blame a criminal's firearm is equivalent to condemning the car or the truck rather than its driver. It's a false premise that misses the crux of the issue. Such intentional naivety actually endangers the public. These days, in diverse gathering places like First Baptist Church or Sandy Hook Elementary School, what's become more unsafe than a gun-free zone?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

America's “Terrorist” Lottery

On Halloween, Manhattanites were “treated” to actual horror. Only blocks beyond ground zero and the shadow of the World Trade Center, the worst terrorist attack since 9/11 occurred. Weaponizing a Home Depot rental truck, a Muslim immigrant, suspect Sayfullo Saipov, 29, killed eight innocents and badly injured a dozen more. Also at the nexus of the accompanying political firestorm is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). He was instrumental in crafting the diversity visa program that enabled Mr. Saipov to arrive stateside legally in 2010. Furthermore, perhaps foreshadowing the future carnage, this native of Uzbekistan's first name has a close association with the meaning: “sword of Allah”.

In retrospect, is it any surprise that a bad U.S. immigration policy was grossly exploited by an adherent to radical Islam? Defining Sen. Schumer's involvement is Neil Munro of Breitbart:

“The diversity visa program was created in 1990 by then-Rep. Schumer in response to Irish lobbies in his New York district. Twenty-seven years later, it annually awards 50,000 visas by annual lottery to entrants from around the world, ensuring a cascade of subsequent chain-migrants.”

Like a philosophy straight out of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” this is a randomly awarded golden ticket to a foreigner regardless of that person's background. It gifts the holder a green card, and permanent residency in the United States. Plus, lucky's nuclear family—and distant relatives can emigrate too! After all, such good fortune should not divide families. (Incidentally, this is the same narrative echoed by illegal migrants with U.S. anchor babies.) Ah, the destructive domino effect of lax previous administrations on full display!

In the 21^st century, think of the Immigration Act of 1990—signed into law by George H.W. Bush—as America's version of Russian roulette. For, in practice, that's what this law has metastasized into. To his credit, even Mr. Schumer recognized this truth back in 2013. Then, he among a bipartisan Gang of Eight passed an immigration overhaul that would have ended the Diversity Immigrant Visa. Unfortunately, the move failed to advance in the House. Yet, even if the measure had reached President Obama's desk it seems a reasonable certainty that it would not have been signed. Given all of these facts, one is mystified why President Trump has antagonized Mr. Schumer in this instance. After all, wouldn't this latest attack on NYC further incline the minority leader to align himself with Trump's desire for a merit-based replacement?

At present, that's not a question that can be sufficiently answered. However, what can be addressed is how ill-conceived this random green card lottery system is. Per Pew Center, 19 million applicants from around the world have taken a spin on America's wheel of fortune for fiscal year 2017. (Moreover, in the last decade, an astonishing 156 million have similarly rolled the dice.) What's available yearly is 100,000 chances for the U.S. to extend the welcome mat to perfect strangers with no loyalty to, or cultural appreciation of, American values. Of the 50,000 selected, the vetting process is apparently as vigorous as getting hired to work at McDonald's. To qualify, the individual must have a high school diploma, and two years of work experience in an occupation that requires at least two additional years of training or experience. Fill out form I-485, the Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; a brief interview; an official rubber stamp—and you're in like Flynn! For all the sense this makes, the government should have nicknamed this highly valuable commodity the slacker's visa. In that regard, the loved ones of the NYC victims undoubtedly have more colorful descriptors for this now detestable policy.

In any case, as the October 31^st tragedy has clearly demonstrated, radicalized Islamic proponents are hidden among those admitted into the U.S. Since they are invisible, we must consider past experience as a guide. Therefore, a trend articulated by Alex Nowrasteh, of the Cato Institute, comes to bear. In “Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis,” he wrote:

“Foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015.”

Likewise, one must consider the larger, visible group that contains them. Recall that Muslims comprise 1% of the total U.S. population (per the Pew Center's 2015 figures). Based upon a total population then of 322 million people, that's still 3.2 million people. Also consider that 1 million people have gained residency in the U.S. annually since 1990 via chain migration of extended relatives (see: NumbersUSA.com). So, what's likely to happen to the homeland's Muslim population in the future? This is Pew's prediction:

“Indeed, even before 2040, Muslims are projected to become the second-largest religious group in the U.S., after Christians. By 2050, the American Muslim population is projected to reach 8.1 million people, or 2.1% of the total population.”

Naturally, one does not intend to impugn an entire community for a few bad apples. Yet, a legitimate concern remains: a small number of the radicalized have caused mass-casualty truck attacks in London; Berlin; Barcelona, Spain, and Nice, France. Clearly, a first step is to finally abolish, and replace, the deeply flawed 1990 immigration law forthwith. The unacknowledged monkey wrench in this debacle is the wrongheaded application of “high-admission regions” and “low-admission regions”. If the invited do not provide, for example, a needed skill set what's the point of further diversification of legal migrants? Just for the heck of it? By definition, a large immigration population inherently diversifies an established culture. In fact, by a wide margin, America already accepts more immigrants than any nation on earth. Thus, diversity has already been automatically achieved without all of the unnecessary—and risky—human geo-political gerrymandering!

A vital second step is to linguistically distinguish diversity from multiculturalism. Liberals intentionally use the words interchangeably to muddy their meanings. In truth, they actually represent opposing concepts. Specifically, diversity means the general acceptance of differences—whether they be physical, psychological or behavioral. That's the warm embrace of America's vulcanizing “melting pot”. Hence, the U.S. motto of unity: e pluribus unum, Latin for “out of many, one.” Contrarily, multiculturalism is the rejection of Americanism. Like identity politics, it promotes the idea that assimilation to our constitutional ideals—freedoms enjoyed by all—is somehow repressive. Furthermore, it's the nonsensical idea that society at large should shift itself to pacify even one objector. Witness its (justified) effect on the shadowy and corrupt industry that is Hollywood. A volcanic grievance culture is currently shaking the dream factory's power structures apart. Hasn't America's dysfunctional immigration system, and radical Islamic terrorism done even greater damage? The confluence of both instantly invokes Shirley Jackson's short story “The Lottery.” In it, lots are drawn and the unfortunate winner is stoned to death. Those encountering the “sword of Allah” in NYC on Halloween met an equivalent malevolence.  

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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