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

Clinton Caused Korean Crisis

If David Keene's column (“Making the best of a bad nuclear hand,” The Washington Times, 8/15/17) on North Korea was analogous to a play, it would focus on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern while disregarding the story's lead, Hamlet. Indeed, the mysterious figure central to today's Asian travesty—and wholly unmentioned—is Bill Clinton, circa 1994. Recall some 23 years ago, Slick Willie entered into a $4 billion agreement for U.S. aid to Kim Jong Il's regime. The stated goal then was to “end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.” Given the threat now presented by Kim Jong-un: whoops!

Isn't it important to mention the person most directly responsible for getting America into this international quagmire?

Instead, Mr. Keene focuses on trivial players: Democratic National Committee Deputy Chairman and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, and Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser and U.N. ambassador. For his part, Mr. Ellison is the former co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. For context, at a town hall meeting in Jensen Beach, FL, ex-congressman Allen West said on April 10, 2012:

“I believe about 78 to 81 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

Given Ellison's murky background—whom Mr. Keene pegs as a fool—why quote him? Likewise, speaking of untrustworthy Democratic mouthpieces, is Susan Rice. Remember Benghazi and “Sunday Susan's” multiple claims that the consulate attack was the result of an internet video. Why waste time on those with zero credibility, as she, while letting another politician surnamed Clinton go scot-free?

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  

The Washington Times: Politically Schizophrenic

“The best path forward for the electoral college is to throw support behind a candidate whom a number of Trump-pledged electors can support: Vice President Joe Biden. As the sitting vice president, Mr. Biden is ready to immediately become president. And he is respected by both the right and left as a great statesman.” – Adam Copley, Pleasantville, PA, published on December 14, 2016

For the holidays, have The Washington Times opinion editors entered “The Twilight Zone”? (Do they think they actually work for The Washington Post?) As it isn't April Fool's Day, what else explains why liberal fascism is granted precious space in their scant Letters section? Given that The Times is supposedly the “conservative” Washington newspaper, the above absurdity is one for the ages. So, American elections shouldn’t count? The people's choice of President-elect Donald Trump shouldn’t really matter? The Electoral College should go rogue, subvert the 2016 election by elevating laughingstock Joe Biden to the presidency?

Let's sample the words and behavior of this “great statesman”. An obtuse gaffe machine with a habit of skinny dipping outside of the vice president's residences in Delaware and Washington (in front of understandably red-faced female Secret Service agents). When clothed, he says J-O-B-S is a three-letter word. He once described candidate Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean”. But wait, the comic relief gets richer. Mr. Biden's unknowing off the cuff remark that his boss “has a big stick” is another real gem. He's only “presidential material” to those lost souls desperately in need of psychological intervention.

Moreover, Joe Biden's political instincts are similarly disastrous. Domestically, as senator, he crafted the federal three-strikes legislation (copied by states like California) that's filled America's prisons to bursting with non-violent offenders. As vice president, he supported the economic fiasco that is ObamaCare. Not to be outdone internationally, he was against the decision to go after terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. He couldn't even arrange a simple Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in Iraq, leaving a demilitarized zone ISIS moved into. Mr. Biden can't govern his brain or his mouth—let alone lead America. Therefore, one questions the boneheaded editorial decision to promote such an unworthy buffoon as president.

The Washington Times should not pander to progressives or otherwise parrot the MSM's anti-Trump propaganda. That means ending the practice of promoting liberals' screwball notions in their Letters section. Doing so wrongly alienates their loyal readership. More importantly, The Washington Times mistakenly hobbles the conservative viewpoint it's supposed to champion. Ironically, opinion editors need to read their own publication. Specifically, they should look to same-day column entitled “The mad search for pro-Trump columnists” by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. Within, Mr. Tyrrell highlights this systemic problem: the legacy media's overt liberal bias disregards the potent ideas that have fueled Donald Trump's populist revolution within the Republican Party.

In retrospect, it's no wonder why it took The Washington Times 33 years—and 1 billion dollars in losses—to reach profitability for the first time in September of 2015. Around the same time, the powers that be condensed the Commentary section. The Letters to the Editor section was halved to the meager size of a postcard. Suddenly, an unimportant daily “book review” was made visually central (given a full column on the other half of the page). As this feature often seems more like an advertisement, it has no business being there. (One presumes the redesign was done for economic reasons. Given their history in the red, it's understandable.) In any case, the problem lies with careless Washington Times opinion editors. They consistently act like their Post counterparts by filling Letter space with anti-Republican claptrap.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

Invasion of Political Body Snatchers

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.” - Ronald Reagan

Why does the Washington Times consistently allow know-nothing liberals—the Oren M. Spieglers of the world—to speak for conservatives? After a robust Republican primary of 17 impressive candidates, the voters have made their choice. That selection—unconventional Donald Trump—has accrued more votes than former nominees Mitt Romney and John McCain. In America true political power still resides with 'We the People.' Therefore, Mr. Ryan's coy, Johnny-come-lately “support” doesn't demonstrate patriotism (as Mr. Spiegler wrongly claims), but contempt for it.

Despite what ever personal reservations he is privately entitled to, Mr. Ryan's long-forgotten duty is to us, not himself. Yet, his entrenched elitist resistance shows he “knows better.” Therefore, the House Speaker is no longer a public servant (a representative). He's been in Washington so long he fancies himself a de facto overlord. Is it any wonder that average citizens want an outsider (beyond the body snatching beltway) for president?

Though has actions, Mr. Ryan doesn't believe in the “traditional tenets of the Republican Party” either. Beyond lip service—to ideals like limited government or his broken promise to repeal Obamacare—he hasn't “made a career out of railing against” the ills of government, he has enabled them. Recall, Mr. Ryan's been in office since the tail end of Bill Clinton's presidency (1999) and all through the economically disastrous Obama years. Further, who else but he has recklessly and irresponsibly approved 2 trillion more to the nation's Chinese credit card? In truth, during Mr. Ryan's entire time in Congress, the country has already had budgets “wildly out of balance and add[ed] trillions of dollars to the deficit.” Therefore, anything billionaire businessman Trump likely does will be an improvement. Yet, a vote for Hillary is for an economy-killing, Obama-preserving third term. It's mad hatter lunacy: the wrongheaded decision to ram the same intractable iceberg that sunk the RMS Titanic.

Speaking of a monstrous block of ice, Mrs. Clinton, as president, is not the “lesser of two evils.” Not by a long shot. A habitual liar under multiple federal investigations for corruption, influence peddling—and perhaps even Server-gate treason—is preferable? After the editor who approved publication of Mr. Spiegler's propagandist “Hold Ryan accountable” is subdued and heavily medicated, the men with straitjackets should be immediately dispatched to that author's Upper Saint Clair, PA address. One expects this utter nonsense from the progressive Washington Post, but not from their evidently body snatched counterparts at the Washington Times.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Wasting space with uninformed views

The Washington Times' Letters to the Editor section has shrunk from a traditional newspaper column to that of the size of a post card (done, I presume, for budgetary reasons.) Then, this tiny, precious space is filled with the vacuous views of progressives.

Tuesday's topics: an anti-Trump piece, and an anti-Republican piece for good measure. Regarding “Trump unfit for presidency,” the contributor said, “Never before in American history has a person of Trump's self-absorbed authoritarian mindset come so close to the Oval Office?” Delusion? Those exact qualities describe current Oval Office occupant Barack Obama! Similarly, the second neophyte in “Supreme Court needs nine” laments Mr. Obama's inability to wrest the Senate's constitutional consent for his Supreme Court pick. Indeed, out of the mouth of this babe comes drooling: “I think I deserve to live in a country that follows its constitution.” That's precisely what Senate Republicans are doing in this matter: not giving approval—their purview. Clearly, this millennial has no idea how our system of government actually functions.

Still, we agree on one thing. If Republicans had followed the Constitution and impeached Mr. Obama for repeated executive overreach—clear to anyone who understands our founding document—he would have been somewhat reined in even if not removed from office. And long-term our country would be the better for it. The colossal mess it's currently in is due to both sides of our political leadership not heeding Constitutional strictures.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976