Andy Puzder:
Democrats willing to tank the economy, trash the Constitution and empower
bullies to defeat Trump
Over the last six months, it has become increasingly obvious
there is no limit on how far Democrats and their media allies are willing to go
to bring down President Trump. Because of their obsessive hatred of the
president, they have wantonly placed our economy at risk of collapse, created a
false constitutional crisis,
and most recently, opposed the takedown of an Iranian terrorist leader.
In August, it was the economy. We were told repeatedly that a
recession was imminent. The Washington Post ran an article titled “Stocks
losses deepen as a key recession warning surfaces” discussing how recession
signals had “intensified.” CNN ran an article stating, “Two recession warning
signs are here.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren,
D-Mass., published an article titled, “The Coming Economic Crash — And How to
Stop It.”
The
business climate is
a subject I know something about. I ran an international company for 16
years. I knew, and said publicly many times, that there was no imminent
recession. Consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of our economic
growth and it remained strong throughout this period.
Could this overblown “recession”
coverage have been an effort to cast a pall over the economy’s underlying
strength, reducing consumer confidence and tanking the economy so as to topple
Trump in 2020?
Of course it was, and at
least one anti-Trump leftist was honest about it.
I don’t often agree with comedian
Bill Maher, but I have to give him so credit for saying what he believes. When
asked if he really wanted a recession, Maher responded “I do.” Why? Well,
because “one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy.”
Luckily, consumers ignored the
false recession hysteria. By December, The Washington Post ran an article
almost apologetically titled “U.S. economy shakes free of recession fears in
striking turnaround since August.”
By September, it was the
“impeachment emergency.” Democrats claimed that the risk of Trump remaining in
office was so great they could not take the time to get testimony from key
administration witnesses before voting for impeachment. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.,
stated that impeachment was “an urgent matter” and Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.,
called it a “matter of urgency.” Note the emphasis on “urgency.”
So, the House rushed a vote to
impeach – and then the urgency died. It’s just died. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
now claims she will send the articles to the Senate next week, after sitting on
them for a month. Why the delay? Well, she wanted to be sure the Senate would
take the time required to call the very witnesses she failed to call because
the matter was so “urgent.”
The reality – the truth – is that
the impeachment proceedings against Trump are and always were a farce.
The Democrats’ position is
nonsense. They are insisting that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,
R-K.y., do what Pelosi would not do, even though it was her constitutional
responsibility to do it; and they are trying to extort McConnell’s compliance
by refusing to send him articles of impeachment he didn’t want in the first
place.
That’s not statesmanship, or
governance, or even politics as we’ve always understood the term. It’s the
logic of obsession playing itself out in public view.
Democrats have now seized on
Trump’s decision to take out Iran's Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a
dangerous terrorist responsible for more than 600 American deaths among other
atrocities, who was planning attacks on four U.S. embassies. This killing
should have garnered bipartisan support, much like Obama’s taking out Usama Bin
Laden. It didn’t.
Democrats and their media allies
simply hate Trump more than they hate anti-American terrorists. He’s a
bigger threat to their socialist agenda.
Warren admitted that Soleimani
was a bad guy but said taking him out was a “reckless move” that “increases the
likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.,
tweeted that Trump’s decision “brought us closer to another disastrous war in
the Middle East.” Former Vice President Joe Biden said that Trump has “tossed a
stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.”
Of course, none of that was true.
Iran did not begin World War III
as Democrats warned. Instead, it sent 15 missiles into Iraq, not one of
which took an American or an Iraqi life. Iran’s foreign minister then
tweeted that “Iran did “not seek escalation or war.”
The next morning, Trump
acknowledged what we all knew. Faced with the power of the United States
military, Iran was wisely “standing down.” Rather than throwing dynamite into a
tinderbox, Trump utilized American military power to pour water on an
inflammatory situation where an avowed enemy believed it could target our
citizens, our allies and our embassies with impunity. Trump stood up to a
regional bully and the bully backed down.
Democrats’ response was to pass a
non-binding, meaningless “war powers resolution,” which Pelosi said was
intended “to limit the president’s military actions regarding Iran.” In other
words, the Democrats don’t want our president to take out terrorists like Soleimani
until he gets permission from Congress. No doubt, this resolution was lauded in
Tehran, where the mullahs would like nothing better than having this do nothing
Congress restrain the first president to stand up to them since Reagan.
As we head into 2020, the
American people will have a choice. They can reelect a president with a
record of undeniable success who puts their interests over politics, the
media’s whims and personal gain. Or, they can elect the candidate of a
political party willing to tank the economy, trash the constitution and empower
bullies all in the name of seizing political power. It’s a choice that is
becoming all too clear.
Democrats Have Become a
Disfigured Reflection of the Party They Once Were
In
an amazingly prophetic story by Isaac Bashevis Singer entitled "The Gentleman from Cracow,"
about life in the village of Frampol, where "the food was scarce and the
water foul," one day, a young man, a doctor, arrives in a carriage
drawn by eight horses. He tells the villagers that his wife and baby
have just died in childbirth, and his rabbi had advised him that his melancholy
would disappear in Frampol. He begins to spend a lot of money in the
town, and the town prospers as never before. He finally decides to
marry one of the local women. On the day of the wedding, "the
gentleman from Cracow revealed his true identity." Who is
he? Singer reveals him to us: "He was no longer the young man
the villagers had welcomed, but a creature covered with scales, with an eye in
his chest, and on his forehead a horn that rotated at great
speed. His arms were covered with hair, thorns, and elflocks, and
his tail was a mass of live serpents, for he was none other than Ketev Mriri,
Chief of the Devils."
The
above story could be a parable about the Democratic Party, which can now
rightly be called the Leftocratic Party, as it has embraced extremist socialist
and communist views. Its members have morphed from being a voice of
hope as one of America's two great parties to being properly characterized as
unbelievable liars in their animus toward Pres. Donald J. Trump, voices of
perversion as they publicly condemn any reservations expressed about
"gender fluidity," and anti-prosperity as they wax indignant about
Trump's disengagement from various multilateral deals that drain our
economy. Practical and realistic concerns about Islamic terrorist
threats are dismissed with outraged, scowling faces as vicious, maniacal
racism. Further, the so-called impeachment hearings distorted or
discarded almost every time-honored legal norm under our rule of law.
The
Leftocrats are apologists for evil (not just disagreeable) foreign
regimes and are against fundamental
Constitutional ideas and structures such as the Tenth Amendment as they resist
federal disengagement from setting nationwide education
priorities. Leftocrats have been vehemently calling for abolition of
the Electoral College. They are cursing the president from every
podium and venue that presents itself and thereby undermine the separation of
powers and demonstrate disrespect for the law of the land since our president
is head of the Executive Branch.
We
see in their contempt for federal marijuana laws, the institution of sanctuary
cities, and their hostility to border enforcement a deranged lack of
perspective regarding the health of our citizens, many of whom are struggling
with or dying from drug usage. The opioid epidemic we face is clearly
connected to the opioid supply, and that, in turn, is clearly a border
issue. Yet they put aside the well-being of so many poor souls
caught by the hook of addiction into ignoring border enforcement in order to
score political hate points against the president. Instead of
looking at border issues in terms of law and national health, they turn
enforcement into an ugly, defamatory argument about American and Trumpian
racism. Only 14 years ago, they were able to agree with Republicans
on the need for stronger border enforcement, whereas now they try to block
every Trump attempt — mandated by the American people — to bring order out of
chaos on our southern border.
Their
ideas of fairness, justice, family, morality, generosity, love, responsibility
are not American in any meaningful way. Instead of promoting
political ideals consistent with the U.S. history of Judeo-Christian ideas and
ideals (based upon a Protestant foundation derived from English speaking
Protestants, albeit with overlays of other Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish
traditions), they have derived most of their ideas from abstractions based
in cultural
Marxism.
The
phrase "melting pot" had gained wide currency in 1908, during the
great wave of Slavic, Jewish, and Italian immigration, when Israel Zangwill's
play "The Melting Pot" was produced. In it, a character
says with enthusiasm, "America is God's
crucible, the great melting-pot where all the races of Europe are melting and
re-forming!"
Beginning
in the 1960s, instead of the melting pot, the multiculturalists — rooted in the
cultural Marxism of Theodor
Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm, Antonio
Gramsci, and others — began affirming the
diversity "salad bowl" image. Our national motto: E
pluribus unum ("out of many one") has been stood on its
head, whereby the goal of the nation is purported as fulfilled only by
highlighting and praising the distinctions of every sub-cultural group in the
U.S. by age, ethnicity, immigrant status, sexual deviancy (preference), and all
"protected classes." The cultural Marxists want us to
believe that the melting pot ideal was a deception imposed on society as a
whole by white, male, straight Christians and that the melting pot ideal lacked
truth, democratic values, and social vigor. The masses and certain groups
in particular were shunted aside, dispossessed, ignored, or
brutalized. America, despite its apparent successes, was sucking the
hope and lifeblood out of the masses of people.
For
those of us who have witnessed the progress of African-Americans since the days
of Jim Crow and have experienced the economic and social progress of
generations produced by the dirt-poor, non-English-speaking immigrants, the
harsh criticisms of America by the Leftocrats has morphed into an outrageous
and almost demonic defiance of reason. Where is the balance, the
display of reasonableness, the acceptance of others? Instead, we see
an unbridled, vulgar, destructive mindset on display everywhere in the party of
derangement. Just consider the language used about Trump by Robert De Niro or the mock
bloody beheadings of our
president. Consider the evil assassin who tried
to kill Republican congressmen in Florida.
The
Democrats now rightly can be renamed Leftocrats. Their hostility to
President Trump has reached pathological dimensions or worse. Their
mantras about the "top 1%" or "top 0.1%" have become the
tip of a spear of seemingly bottomless hatred for our president, our history,
our legal structures, our institutions, our religious heritage, our language,
and our achievements in every sphere of human endeavor. They have
left the realm of constructive criticism and have moved even beyond destructive
criticism into the pathological domain of hysterical
dementia — or, as with Singer's story, a
level of unhingedness even beyond the ken of psychiatry.
Democrats' Contempt for the Sanctity of Life
Ed Buck, a prominent Democrat donor and fundraiser, has
been charged with battery,
administering illegal drugs, and operating a drug house. The charges
paint a disturbing picture of this wealthy scion of liberal
politics. At this time, two men have been identified as having died
and a third having been seriously harmed, but prosecutors are said to have
found hundreds of photographs "of men in compromising positions" who may have
been lured to Buck's home with the promise of money, shelter, and drugs.
This case raises many questions, not just concerning the several
felonies with which Buck has been charged, but about the morality of this and
other prominent liberals. On what basis could any human being engage
in sexual conduct with "hundreds" of unfortunate human beings, using
them like playthings and then casting them aside? What does such
conduct suggest about the capacity of some individuals to use others for their
personal pleasure, regardless of the dangerous consequences
involved?
Certainly, conservatives are far from perfect, but at least
conservatives do not flaunt their iniquities. Conservatives as
individuals possess all the imperfections of other men, but they still ascribe
to an ideal of goodness and virtue. The same cannot be said for
liberals, who believe that they should rack up as much pleasure as possible in
this world because they are sure there's no life after death.
For liberals, what happens in the Oval Office stays in the Oval
Office. Many Democrats thought Bill Clinton was just being Clinton
and that there was nothing especially immoral about conducting affairs with
aides, state employees, actresses, and nursing home managers. Was
this because they did not appreciate the sanctity of those who served as mere
diversion for our 42nd president?
Just what is so appealing to liberals about promiscuity,
anyway? Is it just sex, or is there a special satisfaction in
transgressing traditional moral codes? Is it the idea that one is
"bigger" than the law? Or is it that liberals believe that
the rules no longer apply? Is it beneath them to believe in marital
fidelity and lifetime devotion to one's spouse? Liberals think they
are too sophisticated for this kid of trust, just as they think telling the
truth is Boy Scout stuff and election promises are made to be
broken. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your
doctor." Yeah, right.
Conservatives are different. We at least hold up the
ideal of devotion, honesty, and truth-telling, and though we're not perfect, we
try to be. That's especially the case when it involves the sanctity
of life. Conservatives defend the unborn, defend their families, and
defend their God-given liberties. Conservatives know that all of
God's creation is sacred, and it is that knowledge that makes them act with
restraint and care. That is the essence of conservatism.
The essence of liberalism, as I see it, is a lack of restraint
rooted in egotism and self. The Warren presidential campaign is a
perfect example. If elected, Elizabeth Warren will, according to her
own admission, attempt
to closely regulate all large businesses, eliminate fracking
and the jobs that go with it, provide Medicare for All, dictate health care
decisions (including practically unlimited abortion "rights"),
eliminate capital punishment, raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations,
provide free college, cancel student debt, eliminate the Electoral College, ban
assault weapons, open our borders, legalize marijuana, and significantly cut
the defense budget.
Warren's policies show her
to be an extremist driven by ideology rather than concern for the individuals
whom she would tax, endanger, disenfranchise, and tyrannize with regulation and
social mandates. Where is her concern for the individuals whose
lives she would alter so radically with her sweeping reforms? Those
lives are sacred, their right to prosper and save is sacred, and their right to
safety and security is sacred. Warren does not seem to have thought
much about the dangers of unrestrained immigration or the fact that a weakened
national defense will put all Americans at risk. What is she
describing is tyranny, plain and simple.
The most obvious example of liberal denial of the sanctity of
life, of course, is liberals' position on abortion. For any person
who truly believes in the sanctity of life, abortion must be
repugnant. One point six million abortions, terminating
approximately one quarter of all pregnancies, are performed every year in the
U.S. At this rate, that would amount to 80 million abortions over
the past 50 years. Imagine the loss of those beautiful human souls.
Or are they
beautiful? Liberals do not believe so. They tell us that
the earth has become overpopulated. It is "the earth" that
matters and not human beings. Or they say the mothers of those
unborn children would not be able to care for them and that the children would
just become a burden on the State. The "burden on the
State" is more important than the unborn child.
What you will never hear from a liberal is the idea that every
child, born and unborn, is sacred. A child is worth that burden and
worth the stress he purportedly places on "the earth." A
time is coming when America will wish that it had those 80 million souls to
defend it and help it prosper. That ability to contribute to society
and pursue economic opportunity, and to fight if necessary to defend one's
home, is another side of what makes every child sacred. Children are
sacred because of their capacity for goodness, beauty, and life, but also
because they will grow into adults who take responsibility for themselves and
for their neighbors.
Would any conservative vote to end the life of 80 million human
beings?
I believe that every human being is God's creation and that
everyone is born with the potential to contribute and achieve. Our
Founders believed in limited government because they too believed in human
potential, and they feared the tyranny of authoritarianism. They had
reason to fear, having lived under the yoke of British colonial rule.
It is no accident that those who seek a vast expansion of
government power today also oppose the sanctity of life. A free
people engaged in productive endeavors will never vote for a socialist who will
suppress their freedom. What today's tyrants fear above all is a
public that believes in the sanctity of life and is willing to stand up for it.
Jeffrey Folks is the author
of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland
of the Imagination (2011).
So is running for president now a corrupt Democrat's 'get out of jail free'
card?
Based on today's
standards, promoted in Congress and the press, Democratic
Party candidates, such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, can
greatly enrich their families with massive amounts of money from foreign
parties, and a Republican president or its Justice department are not even
allowed to bring up their names, let alone research their obvious
corruption. Most of the media and other Democrats are now calling President
Trump's bid to get to the bottom of the ongoing corruption we see 'impeachable'
and they couldn't care less about corruption as they preach that no one is
above the law.
Democrats can seek trash
on their Republican opponents from foreign nationals and not only do most
journalists and other Democrats not care, they can use a fake dossier
full of opposition research as grist for an FBI investigation in their
bid to take out Trump. Then, if Trump brings up Biden’s name to a foreign
leader, they call that illegal and impeachable.
A Democrat, her staff and
many at the State Department and other agencies can continually violate the
nation's security laws (as Clinton did) and the Justice Department inexplicably
lets her off. Most journalists and other Democrats support her and call it
partisan to look at the clear violations of the law as they lecture everyone
that no one is above the law.
A Democrat and her spouse
can physically and mentally abuse women (again, the Clinton pair) and seek to
destroy anyone who gets in their way as they amass power. Most
journalists and other Democrats don’t give a damn about any of the abused women
with credible claims against Bill or Hillary Clinton even as they say how
pro-women they are.
A Democrat commits fraud
throughout her adult life by lying about her heritage to move up the economic
ladder (Elizabeth Warren) and most journalists and other Democrats will support
her. In fact, they've made her the frontrunner in the current Democratic
nomination for president polls.
Democrat candidates can
seek to destroy and impeach Judge Brett Kavanaugh based on articles the media
has published with no evidence to support the stories. And the media pretends
their stories are based on facts. How can they expect the public to believe
them when they ran years of stories on Russian collusion when there was never
any evidence?
Democrat candidates
continually lie about what Trump said in Charlottesville and lie about
Ferguson, Missouri to gin up racial hate and violence and they are
supported wholeheartedly by the complicit media as they pretend they are the
party of unity and the truthful party.
Democrat bureaucrats in
the Obama administration, at Justice, CIA, other intelligence agencies and at
the State Department continually lie to justify spying to take out Trump while
they protect Hillary from prosecution. But if the Trump administration looks at
the origins of the fake Russian collusion narrative, that is impeachable and
partisan. The compliant media doesn’t give a darn about the clear violations of
the law and abuse of power while they continually say that no one is above the
law.
A Democrat president
can violate the Constitution with DACA, be flexible with Russia, give kickbacks
to Iran tyrants, stop an investigation into drug running by terrorists to
appease Iran, violate bankruptcy laws, have slush funds at Justice, CFPB and
EPA to reward political supporters, illegally unmask names of people
surrounding Trump, leave Americans to die in Libya while concocting a lie, spy
illegally on thousands of Americans, imprison reporters, look the other way as
his Secretary of State violates security laws and takes kickbacks, Look the
other way as Obama administration officials such as Eric Holder, John Brennan,
James Clapper, Susan Rice and others commit perjury, withhold documents from
Congress for years on Fast and Furious, prosecute whistleblowers for violation
of the espionage act, cage and separate children at the border and all his
conversations with foreign leaders will remain private.
As the media watched all
this clear corruption unfold throughout eight years of Obama, almost all
journalists and other Democrat supported him, called him brilliant and to this
date pretend the Obama administration was scandal-free as they tell the public
that no one is above the law.
Known serial liars
Clapper, Brennan, Holder, plus creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti are
treated as reliable sources by almost all media outlets as they trash Trump.
Meanwhile, whatever Trump
does is impeachable, even if it is only bringing up Biden’s name to investigate
clear corruption. According to the media, as they collude with other Democrats,
it appears that every one of Trump’s phone calls should be made public.
And any disgruntled
Democrat bureaucrat who leaks information, whether or not they had firsthand
knowledge, should be treated as a protected whistleblower instead of a leaker.
Republicans are welcome
as reliable sources in the media, like Senators Mitt Romney, John McCain or
Jeff Flake, as long as they are trashing Trump. Otherwise they are not
welcome.
It is so hard to spot the
bias as the media trashes Trump and his supporters, daily, with every name in
the book and lecture the public that no one is above the law and how the
Democrat party is the party of unity.
Image credit: Photo illustration by
Monica Showalter with use of image by Michael Vadon, via
Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0.
Hillary's going to get in
It
is no longer a matter of if but of when. All doubts about Hillary's 2020
plans should have been erased by her appearances this week promoting the book
that she and her daughter “wrote” to say nothing about her mien! She
endlessly reprised her absurd claim
that the election was stolen from her, called for Trump's impeachment, and even
admitted to her gutsiness for standing by her man.
I
think she has always been in the race, covertly, and that she and Bill always
assumed that no candidate would arrive at the convention with enough delegates
to win the nomination on the first ballot, at which point she could be put
forth as a compromise.
Biden's
done for; there is no way he is going to survive the imbroglio surrounding his
son's machinations and profiteering in Ukraine and China. There's too
much there there. It will become inescapable, even to the unwashed, that
the only reason money flowed to Hunter Biden was to gain influence with Joe or
gain benefits through Joe and his network of friends and allies.
Joe’s
always been a placeholder for Hillary, whether he realizes it or not. It’s all
has changed now because Biden's done, and could precipitate Hillary's early
entry into the fray, as not only Biden but Bernie Sanders may be leaving the
field. With their supporters potentially up for grabs, Elizabeth Warren could
end up with a first ballot victory.
Hillary
has to know that she is considered to be unlikable, but I think it is a given
that no one likes Warren,
either. Daniel Greenfield compares her to Hillary here:
Warren’s likability deficit has nothing to do
with her gender....[She ripped] off asbestos victims while pocketing a tidy
sum....The ‘Hillariness’ of Warren doesn’t [just] lie in their shared fabulism
or lack of ethics....[her] a complete lack of qualifications....[or because
both are] inauthentic scolds who suffer from hall monitor syndrome. They spent
their entire lives breaking every rule they could find while awkwardly
fantasizing about running every tiny detail of everyone else’s
lives....[They're] both unlikable because you can’t picture either one having
any fun....[C]ombine that with an obsessive need to monitor, regulate and
eradicate other people’s fun, and you have the miserable essence of the
progressive movement.
Hillary,
and Bill, know that this is their [third] last chance, and they're not going to
let another woman snatch it from her, as that “articulate and
bright and clean and a nice-looking” black guy or that entitled creep
did. So, keep an eye out, for “when” is going to be sooner than anyone
expected.
Now,
can she win this time? Only a fool would count her out. She won't
lose Biden's supporters. Just being a woman will get her many of Warren's
female supporters. Despite Trump's inroads with African-American and
Hispanic voters, she'll find considerable support in those groups. Wall
Street, Hollywood, and the MSM love her. Traditional Democrats, not
wanting four more years of uproar, may return to the fold over Ukraine and the
like.
She'll
work harder this time, if she can uphold under the effort, bringing
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, and Wisconsin into the picture.
She'll be better prepared to debate Trump, but that may not mean much since Trump's
hard to out-debate.
Settle
into the chair, get out the popcorn, the show's about to begin. If you
doubt it, then I have a walking trail in Chappaqua to sell you.
The author is retired, his profile may be
found on LinkedIn, and he usually responds to emails sent
to ringchadburn@hotmail.com
.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment