Twisting D'Sousa's “Big Lie”

From his book review of Dinesh D'Sousa's latest, Washington Times columnist Michael Taube gets it wrong. Mr. Taube's article title incorrectly proclaims, “Fascists to the right, fascists to the left”. Yet, the whole point of “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left” is to clarify that Nazism/Fascism/Socialism are political movements exclusive to the left. In other words, despite this scribe's misleading assertion, they are never of the political right. Want an example of a “radical” right-wing group? Try the Tea Party!

To be fair, Mr. Taube touches on Ronald Reagan's famous “60 Minutes” quote from 1975, “If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.” But what else did “The Gipper” say that this reviewer vitally left out? To continue with Mr. Reagan's now prophetic words:

“And what is fascism? Fascism is private ownership—private enterprise—but total government control and regulation. Well isn't this the liberal philosophy? The conservative, so-called, is the one that says less government—get off my back, get out of my pocket—and let me have more control of my own destiny.”

Put simply, these three sister philosophies of big government cannot be of the right. On a related matter, President Trump cannot be a fascist or a socialist because he is a deregulating, unapologetic capitalist! Likewise, he can't be a Nazi either because he is, for example, staunchly pro-Israel. Indeed, Mr. Trump’s “America First” policies of economic self-determination—and his outspoken refutation of liberals and the MSM—define him as a true patriot in our tumultuous modern age.

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

Trumpmageddon: Swampy Democrats' Waterloo

“The Liberals have not had a new idea since the last Ice Age; and nowadays the mark of a true Liberal is not so much his adherence to a coherent agenda but the intensity of his angers and the alacrity with which he urges impeachment proceedings against a conservative president at the least provocation.” – “The American Spectator” editor in chief, author and columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., “The Conservative Crack-Up” (1992)

The Washington establishment is glacial in its permanence; defined by its “swampy” unwillingness to conform to the will of freedom-loving people who elected a true outsider to the presidency in 2016. Given scribe Tyrrell's above insight, who's not today instantly reminded of Democrats' rabidly anti-Trump rhetoric (abetted by entrenched, weak-kneed Republicans)? For context, his prophetic genius was actually penned over 25 years ago. It refers to liberals' unjustifiable angst over another political upstart: Ronald Reagan. Besides that commonality, Donald Trump has another Reaganesque connection: he appropriated his predecessor's patriotic 1980s slogan, “Make America Great Again”.

In order to “M.A.G.A.”, as “The Great Communicator,” Reagan utilized Oval Office addresses to speak directly to the American people. Thus, he circumvented the cacophony of Washington naysayers, and the largely unfavorable spin of the legacy press. For that same purpose, President Trump uses Twitter, the 21^st century equivalent. For his part, Reagan was constantly belittled and attacked for opposing liberalism. Isn't the left's farcical charge of Trump campaign collusion with Russia the same thing? To that end, on June 15^th, The Donald tweeted:

“You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history—led by some very bad and conflicted people!#MAGA”

Trump's “bad people” have reason for concern: their candidates are 0-5 in special congressional elections. If political hell is an “Ice Age”—a Siberian wasteland for the sidelined—this is squarely where Democrats find themselves. President Trump, as Reagan before him, is leading America despite the raging opposition. Hence, liberals' overblown response, a new political malady known as “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. But, what else are backbenchers bereft of constructive ideas to do? They have reconstituted Barack Obama's buck-passing “blame Bush” strategy: a distraction from their own obvious policy failures.

Combine progressives' toxic track records with their equally hateful rhetoric—as epitomized by the last administration. That, in turn, has inspired their alienated, self-radicalized followers to perpetrate violent and murderous acts. As a case and point, why else would a Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, attempt to massacre a group of Republican lawmakers at a Virginia baseball park on June 14^th? To that end, Tyrrell's ironically titled Washington Times column of June 21^st, “Just another well-intentioned progressive,” addresses that disturbing incident. Once again, his spot-on assessment is both startlingly predictive and illuminating:

Actually, that Hodgkinson is pretty much a standard-issue progressive ought to give everyone the creeps. … [T]he “angry left”.... has been on a steady evolution toward homicide like what Hodgkinson undertook last week for years, and there are a lot more Hodgkinsons out there than we care to contemplate.”

Well, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. would know, wouldn't he?

What he wrote in 1992 is a snapshot of today's vanquished progressives: all bluster and bravado, signifying nothing. Lacking a platform, their divisive party has rotted to its core. Unless one considers the superficiality of identity politics, or grievance culture, a cohesive agenda. Is it any wonder they're so grossly out of touch in the Trump Age? Clearly, “Resistance” is a slipshod political strategy; as unlikely to bear fruit as their much beloved impeachment fantasy. Besides gridlock and dysfunction, what do they offer? Once again, Tyrrell's prescient words concerning liberals' shenanigans are as true now as they were during Reagan's era:

“They gave themselves over to innuendo, misrepresentation, and slander; and the conservatives sat quietly by with the American people witnessing an increasingly lurid spectacle.”

How is that not a blueprint for progressives' anti-Trump tactics of 2017? Democrats driven around the bend by those over the hill: Hillary Clinton, 69; Bernie Sanders, 75; Elizabeth Warren, 68; Nancy Pelosi, 77 (and for good measure, Joe Biden, 74). For the “iced” left—led astray by political dinosaurs—Tyrrell brilliantly proves the past truly is prologue.

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

Mistaking Trump for Hateful Obama

“Obama made America great again. Trump made America hate again” – Occupy Democrats' fascist propaganda

If the nation is currently politically polarized, that's due to President Obama. Who else has been in charge but him? For eight years, he and his progressive minions have badly ruled the roost. For example, who demonized the police when he said, “The cops acted stupidly” back in 2009? Further, who promoted the idea regarding his critics: 'We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends' in 2010? The only one promoting years of divisiveness and hatred has been orator Obama. As Democrat Harry Truman said of the U.S. presidency: the buck stops with him. That means every president. Is Mr. Truman wrong and Occupy Democrats right?

The fact remains that Donald Trump is not even in office yet! So, no reasonable person—or group—can blame the new guy for the acrimonious state of our nation. Therefore, Occupy Democrats' claims—and slogans, exemplified above—are patently absurd on their face. They are anti-American fascists—and their fiction is not to be trusted.

Part of living in a democracy means accepting the results of our periodic elections. Why should 2016 be any different than 2008 or 2012? Not to do so now is frankly un-American. If Hillary had won conservatives would not have liked it. Still, adults suck it up and honor the outcome.

That's a fundamental difference between today's rabble-rousing liberals and us. We actually respect the other guy when our candidate loses. Even a radical like Obama! As proof, despite his murky background, no Republican tried to derail or boycott Obama's inaugurations with claims of illegitimacy. Thus, it’s inexcusable for bogus Democrats to do so now with President-elect Trump.

In 2009, Mr. Obama put such matters succinctly: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” He has never spoken truer words. It's good advice that followers of Occupy Democrats should heed in 2017.

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