Share This Article with a Friend!

Transition to Trump: A united GOP in 2017 means bad news for the Democrat agenda

It was almost funny to watch as commentator after commentator observed during the 2016 electoral season that Donald Trump’s success in the GOP primaries and then his sometimes off-the-wall campaign in the fall was not only dividing Republicans against themselves, it was actually destroying the party.

It didn’t happen, of course. Liberals in the media and the miniscule faction of #NeverTrumpers ate some major crow when Trump prevailed on November 8; and far from splitting the party, exit polls revealed Republicans Trump trainlargely came home on Election Day with party loyalists voting for Trump in numbers equal to or greater than they did for Mitt Romney four years ago.

The “destroying the party” narrative was an illusion created by Trump’s enemies and the media to make it look like Hillary Clinton was a lock for winning the presidency.

One of the more visible “divisions” that did exist within the party concerned Trump and Ted Cruz, the last two serious candidates left standing after nearly a year of sometimes bitter competition for the hearts and minds of the Republican and conservative electorate. Of course Trump ended up the winner and Cruz delivered his famous non-endorsement speech at the Republican convention.

Then, as I predicted, Cruz eventually came around to announcing an intention to vote for Trump in September, a move that was easily foreseeable as the only one left for the Texas senator if he wanted to salvage his political career.

Now, the two former acrimonious antagonists seem to not only be getting along, they’re helping each other out.

Eliana Johnson of Politico writes, “Even before he delivered his speech at the convention in July, Cruz’s Senate colleagues were talking about how the Texas senator had emerged from his failed presidential campaign a changed man — more collaborative and accommodating of his colleagues, less combative and strident. Some had begun jokingly to refer to him as ‘Cruz 2.0.’

“Trump’s victory, fortified by Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, has accelerated and deepened the change, taking Cruz from the country’s leading oppositionist and putting him in the unlikely role of facilitating Trump’s Senate agenda. Cruz’s legislative priorities are ‘very much the president-elect’s legislative priorities,’ said a senior Trump transition aide.”

You have to love Politico. Even in a story that’s generally positive towards Cruz and Trump, Johnson couldn’t help but insult the Texas senator, calling him “the country’s leading opportunist.” As if Cruz’s principled stands over the past five years have all been carefully plotted to advance his own career.

Who do they think Cruz is, Obama?

But the newfound collaboration between the two is real. Johnson’s story details how Trump (through Steve Bannon) was even considering Cruz for the open Supreme Court vacancy, a prospect Ted apparently turned down.

Needless to say, Cruz’s decision to advocate on behalf of Trump in the Senate will help his own reelection prospects in 2018. Paul Ryan came to a similar conclusion – that working with Trump is better than opposing him – and Ryan won reelection to the Speakership without serious opposition from conservatives.

Contrary to the naysayers’ dire predictions, the GOP seems more united than ever behind Trump. It’s gotten to the point where the desperate Democrats are almost seeing Trump’s cabinet as a means to restrain the new president from making change too quickly. Who would’ve thought?

W. James Antle III of the Washington Examiner writes, “Senate Democrats have a request for President-elect Trump's Cabinet nominees: please save us from your boss.

“It's a common theme in the confirmation hearings of nominees who have good reputations in their fields or with whom the senators have relationships. They are regularly asked to disavow controversial things Trump has said and to stand up to him once in office.”

Antle details the ways CIA designee Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary-to-be James Mattis, Homeland Security nominee John Kelly and even Sen. Jeff Sessions (the next Attorney General) all disavowed some of Trump’s controversial positions and statements, with the Democrats practically begging these men to put a regulator on Trump.

Antle concludes, “Lacking any filibuster power over these appointees, Democrats are now counting on them to hold back the very man who nominated them.”

The whole notion Trump actually needs a damper is absurd and is just part of the Democrats’ and media’s persistently false contention that the president-elect is mentally unstable and can’t be trusted to lead the nation.

As Joe Biden would say, malarkey.

Most of Trump’s ideas are straight from the conservative and Republican mainstream, revolutionary only to a liberal political and media establishment that quakes at the concept of change and constitutional government. Or truly having to abide by the laws Congress has passed.

While it’s true Trump has said or tweeted a number of controversial things – like terrorists’ families could be targeted for retaliation in the aftermath of an attack – there is absolutely no evidence he would actually act outside the law to achieve his goals.

If anything, the Democrats’ feeble pleading to Trump’s cabinet nominees for help only reinforces the point that he chose well in appointing them to their positions in the first place. If they can be trusted as a group to “restrain” Trump, they must be good people, right?

Democrats do have good reasons to be afraid of Trump but it has nothing to do with him being “dangerous” in any tangible sense. It’s that Trump, through his election victory which proved to have enormous coattails and his sensible personnel selections and legislative proposals, has shown he will not only be a capable president but a successful one.

To those craving to maintain the status quo, that’s a frightening prospect indeed.

Democrats’ astonishing racial hypocrisy distracts from their bias and corruption

Just one of many ways Democrats have tried to discredit Donald Trump and his nominees is by attempting to paint some of them as backwards racists with Jim Crow-era attitudes. It’s a similar line of attack they use for all Republicans generally, but they’ve been particularly hard on Sen. Jeff Sessions of late. As the almost certain next Attorney General, Sessions will take over a Justice Department that’s been ravaged with corruption and partisanship under the tenures of Obama cronies Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

In trying to tattoo Sessions with the race card, Democrats came across as major hypocrites.

Ben Carson friend and advisor Armstrong Williams wrote in The Hill, “They portray themselves as the righteous warriors of truth and conviction, and they actually believe this ‘truth’ to be self-evident. But we must all ask ourselves, particularly as they take the moral high ground while launching a thousand ships of claims of racism against Senator Jeff Sessions, are they truly demi-gods of morality or just puppeteers attempting to pull all of our string?

“It's the latter, and I draw this conclusion based on the lack of diversity on their One hundred member United States Senate staffs.”

Armstrong, who is black, notes that despite all the Democrats’ bloviating about “diversity” there is only one African-American chief of staff in the entire senate and he works for Republican Senator Tim Scott. Armstrong also offers a quote from an unnamed Democrat staffer who said he “cringes” whenever Democrat senators talk about race and discrimination because they don’t practice what they preach.

This is an old story, of course, since Democrats routinely seek to highlight potential racial schisms while hiding their own bigoted history as the founding party of the KKK and fierce defenders of segregation and Jim Crow. But now that these phonies have slapped on Democrat party pins and taken on the banner of using race as a weapon, they think their righteous indignation can move mountains.

In his op-ed Armstrong singles out Senator Cory Booker for particular two-facedness towards Sessions since he publicly thanked the Alabama senator just a year ago “for his help celebrating the 1965 ‘Foot Soldiers,’ those who marched from Selma to Montgomery, Ala., to promote civil rights for African Americans.”

Sessions could have a statue of Martin Luther King in his front parlor and it wouldn’t make one bit of a difference to the Democrats. For them, it’s all about politics – especially in the Obama Justice Department.

Andrew C. McCarthy writes at National Review of one particularly egregious example. “…[C]oncrete and substantiated suspicions of wrongdoing by the Democratic presidential candidate prompt a refusal by the Obama Justice Department to assist the FBI investigation (except to immunize the wrongdoers). Moreover, despite what the intelligence community maintains is confirmed evidence of Russian cyberespionage, the Obama Justice Department — far from seeking court warrants — refuses to compel production of Democratic communication devices.

“You’d almost think the Obama Justice Department makes enforcement decisions based on partisan politics.”

McCarthy’s excellent article denotes the obvious double-standard the Justice Department took in differentially treating investigations of possible wrongdoing against the Trump and Clinton campaigns. It’s well worth reading if you have time.

As far as Sessions is concerned, in response to several Democrats’ inquiries on whether he would protect such liberal sacred cows as abortion and same-sex marriage if he is confirmed as Attorney General, Sessions sternly replied that he would “follow and enforce the law.”

Anyone who’s familiar with Sessions’ career knows he means it. Even many Democrats have admitted Sessions is a man of his word. The same definitely cannot be said for the Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in Congress. All they appear to see is race.

John Lewis and black Democrats conspire to help the Russians achieve their aims

Just four days ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration and on Martin Luther King Day (observed), perhaps it’s fitting the media has latched on to a war of words between the president-elect and one of the prominent African-American voices of our time, Congressman John Lewis.

Lewis, of course, gained notoriety in the sixties as one of the leaders of the “real” civil rights movement (as opposed to the fake one going on currently). But like so many black leaders of today he’s singularly focused on scoring political points using race problems that simply don’t exist in the same way they did over fifty years ago.

As we’ve come to expect, Trump wasn’t about to let Lewis’s insults to his legitimacy go unanswered.

Kyle Cheney, Josh Dawsey and Rebecca Morin of Politico report, “Trump showed yet again that no one who crosses him — no matter how revered or respected, as Lewis is among both parties in Congress — will necessarily be spared his ire. Lewis was one of the top organizers of the 1963 March on Washington, and his skull was fractured by state police on ‘Bloody Sunday,’ the civil rights protest in Selma, Alabama two years later.

“’Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to......mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk — no action or results. Sad!’ Trump wrote in two tweets Saturday morning.”

Again, you gotta love Politico. Lewis is “revered and respected by both parties”? When Lewis announced he’s boycotting Trump’s inauguration because Trump isn’t a “legitimate” president -- only #NeverTrump Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska begged him to reconsider.

No one would deny Lewis’s past important role in moving the country forward on civil rights, though it can also be argued Lewis has gotten more mileage out of a fractured skull (52 years ago) than anyone else ever has.

The truth is Lewis and his fellow Democrat inauguration boycotters have become emblematic of the lunatic leftist fringe in this country that will not accept the reality in front of their eyes – and I’m not just talking about Donald Trump’s election. America’s inner cities have rotted in stagnation for decades and it’s largely due to liberal Democrat policies which pander to the local politicians and encourage government dependence.

Sadly, John Lewis is a leader in that movement along with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and most if not all members of the Congressional Black Caucus. These “leaders” fight to preserve a political status quo that has directly led to the deterioration of the traditional family, abortion of millions of black children, unemployment, failed public schools, crime-ridden neighborhoods and the complete loss of hope for millions.

Obama’s Chicago looks to be among the worst cases.

These are the same people who denounce Ben Carson as an “Uncle Tom” because Carson spoke out against President Obama and advocated for conservative values and called for new attitudes on education and inner city housing. In essence, most black Democrats today are solely interested in keeping power centered in teachers unions, community organizing groups and leftist anarchist organizations like #BlackLivesMatter.

Trump may not be the most artful person to answer them but at least he’s taking a stand against the all too conveniently deployed “Russians did it” excuse that is preventing the country from moving on after a very divisive election.

Should Lewis and his colleagues carry through with their inauguration boycott the media will take note but the only ones who will care are….? Maybe the Russians will be happy, since it looks like whatever scheme they devised to send American into chaos seems to be working. A divided and distracted America can only further their ultimate goals, whatever they may be.

Share this