Absurdity: Take A Wild Stab In The Dark Who Is Responsible For Crazy Claims That Trump’s A ‘Dictator’?

(Tea Party PAC) – President Donald Trump has been attacked by Democrats more than any other commander-in-chief in the political history of our great nation. Look at how the mainstream media, composed of the vast majority of news outlets that are on cable, have dedicated just about every waking minute of coverage since 2015 — when he announced his candidacy — to destroying everything about the man.

They have refused to acknowledge the good he’s done for our country and how he’s helped get us back on track economically speaking after Obama nearly destroyed everything with his disastrous policies, especially the Affordable Care Act.

Trump has faced all kinds of different attacks. Leftists have tried to paint him up as a racist, a neo-Nazi, and a misogynist. But perhaps the most ridiculous charge is that his presidency is illegitimate and that he is seeking to destroy the constitutional structure of our republic.

Democrats have been pushing this narrative by accusing the president of wanting to be a dictator in the same vein as Russian President Vladimir Putin, and that the only reason he was elected was due to Russian interference in the election.

None of this has been proven true.

And you know who is responsible for this narrative?

Hillary Clinton.

Via WND:

These frenzied charges, we now know, were invented and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and then funneled to the U.S. government through the FBI, Department of Justice, and State Department. Meanwhile, the CIA and then the FBI were busy spying on the Trump campaign (and, later, in the FBI’s case, on the Trump presidency), trying to find “collusion” with Russia. Their relentless effort led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose partisan team knew almost immediately there was no proof of these damning allegations. They should have told the public immediately.

Instead, they spent the next two years trying — and failing — to catch President Trump on a “process” crime of obstructing justice, without any underlying crime to investigate. They were pursuing a person, not a crime, violating our most basic idea of legitimate law enforcement. Trump actually cooperated fully with the collusion investigation, providing millions of otherwise-privileged documents, but he didn’t bite on a personal interview designed to catch him in a purported false statement. (His promise to cooperate fully with Mueller’s collusion investigation was based on the special counsel’s explicit promise to complete the investigation quickly. Mueller’s team reneged on that assurance after they received all the White House documents and testimony they sought.)

Why bother trying to lure the president into a false-statement trap if you can’t indict him? Simple: because Mueller’s team, effectively led by his zealous deputy, Andrew Weissmann, wanted to help House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, so she could impeach the president.

That effort failed because the special prosecutor’s office didn’t come up with convincing evidence. The investigation by Pelosi acolyte Adam Schiff also failed. As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff had already elicited testimony, under oath, from Obama administration officials, all of whom said there was no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. He kept that testimony secret for two years so the public would never find out. With these failures accumulating, Schiff’s team suddenly spied another pot of gold at the end of the rainbow: alleged malfeasance by Trump regarding Ukraine.

It was fool’s gold, but it was enough for House Democrats, who voted to impeach the president on a party-line vote. The public wasn’t convinced. House Democrats never won the broad support they needed to convince senators to remove a duly-elected president. How badly did this impeachment effort fail? The Democratic National Convention, held just six months later, simply ignored the whole embarrassing episode. Even the most rabid partisans didn’t care.

These repeated attacks may not have forced Trump out of office, but they succeeded in another way: They hobbled his presidency for four years. Today, the cumulative damage makes his reelection an uphill struggle. So does the COVID pandemic and Trump’s response to it, which the public considers mediocre (or worse) and confusing. Trump’s narcissism/constant self-promotion doesn’t help, either. It repels many educated voters, especially with women.

Now, that last bit about repelling educated voters and women is bunk. There are a lot of college educated folk who are casting a vote for Trump this time around that probably didn’t vote for him last time. Why? Because they are more concerned about what he does than what he says. And Trump kept the vast majority of his promises, thus, they feel that when he says he’s going to do something, he’s going to really do it.

For a politician, that’s almost unheard of. Where this particular author is getting the notion that women and “educated voters” — which makes it seem as if he’s saying Trump supporters aren’t educated — is beyond me.

The vitriolic conflicts surrounding Donald Trump have obscured two crucial issues, which voters ought to weigh carefully as they choose the next president. One is the difference between Trump’s impulsive, divisive personality and the policies he has actually pursued. The other is the Democrats’ threat to significantly change the structure of American government. The two issues are intertwined since Trump’s policies are, at bottom, an effort to restore America’s traditional federal structure and limit the power of unelected officials in Washington. His efforts to roll back the regulatory state also curtail the power of lobbyists and their powerful employers, since they hold the greatest influence over detailed rules and regulations, not general laws like tax rates.

Trump’s tweets and rambling public comments project strong, personalized, centralized power. That’s the essence of the “wannabe dictator” charge against him. In fact, his basic policies are quite different from that self-inflated persona. For all Trump’s braggadocio, he has tried to move the country away from Washington’s centralized control, away from control by executive branch bureaucracies (though not from the White House itself), and toward federalism and policymaking by the elected officials. No president in modern times has waged a more sustained battle against powerful entrenched interests and their phalanx of lobbyists, who rotate in and out of government.

Trump’s most important domestic policies are aimed squarely at wresting control from these special interests and their apologists in the mainstream media. To do so, Trump has tried to return policymaking to elected officials and senior Cabinet appointees and away from the lower-level bureaucrats, whose regulations dominate Americans’ everyday lives. Likewise, he has tried to wrest control of the federal courts away from judges who act like unelected legislators and return them to judges who see a more modest role for themselves: interpreting laws and the Constitution as written.

Taken together, Trump’s major initiatives are an effort to restore the traditional balance between Washington and the states, between those elected to make laws and those responsible for executing them or adjudicating disputes. Not surprisingly, these efforts have met ferocious opposition, led by liberals who established the bureaucratic behemoths in the mid-1960s, by progressives who want to expand them still further, and by interest groups that profit from these massive programs. These disputes, not Trump’s personality, are the heart of America’s modern political divide.

Joe Biden is simply the familiar face of the old guard, repeating hoary nostrums by rote. Their last ideas died decades ago. Their only answer now is to enlarge the programs and spend more money.

The new ideas come not from this nomenclature but from the progressive and socialist left, who want to take giant strides toward centralized, regulatory government, paid for with higher taxes and more debt. They are determined to redistribute wealth on an unprecedented scale and impose vast regulatory schemes, beginning with health care and energy. They want to “reimagine” policing, jails, and immigration, without so much as deigning to explain why this wouldn’t result in letting violent criminals run loose in our cities and states, while opening the Southern border to an influx of illegal migrants (who would then receive the bounty of larger government welfare programs). Since these ideas lack broad voter support, Biden is not running on them. He is running an almost entirely on one idea: Trump is dreadful and needs to be replaced. Biden’s own prospective policies are as well hidden as the Wizard of Oz.

That’s because Biden and his handlers know that if the vast majority of normal, average Americans hear the kind of policies that the former vice president wants to enact, they will lose their votes for sure. It’s a political con game designed to lure undecided voters into hating Trump for no real reason, while throwing support behind Biden, despite the fact that voting for him is essentially voting against their own self-interest.

There are three reasons Biden and the Democrats won’t say what they will do. Despite what happened to them in 2016, they believe a purely negative campaign can win the White House. They are betting that revulsion with Trump is that high. Second, the more Biden and Kamala Harris say, the more likely they are to alienate either progressive activists or center-left independents – and they need both groups to win. Third, the media doesn’t press them for answers, so why give them? The mainstream media want Democrats to win, and they have behaved more like adjuncts of the Biden campaign than neutral reporters.

A negative campaign does not mean the Democrats won’t enact a positive agenda if they are elected. Senior Democrats on Capitol Hill have already floated ideas that would fundamentally alter both Congress and the courts — that is, Articles I and III of the Constitution. To do that, they must not only win the presidency and both houses of Congress, they must change the Senate’s long-established rules, which allow a sufficiently large minority to stop radical legislation. If that minority is 40 votes or more, its members can “filibuster” the bill and prevent its passage. What Democrats are suggesting is they will abolish the filibuster in order to pass sweeping legislation with just 50 votes and Vice President Kamala Harris to break the tie.

At the end of the day, it’s important for voters to remember that Hillary Clinton and many members within the government, including former President Obama and Biden himself, actively plotted against a candidate for president and then tried to overturn the will of the people by having that president impeached on bogus charges.

That’s the kind of enemies we have to worry about right now. Don’t allow their brainwashing techniques being poured through the media sway you away from objective facts. Trump is the better choice for preserving freedom. He might not be perfect, but he’s our best hope right now.

5 COMMENTS

  1. Superbly summarized. This article leaves out a lot of wholly relevant transgressions committed by the army or hate-poisoned psychotics, but then there are so many such transgressions–on average two per week for four years–that no article could reveal them all. The author did an excellent job of providing a general time line and documenting the trend and motives. Bravo and thanks.

  2. Not one President has ever been perfect! Johnson, Carter, Nixon, Bush, Bush, Clinton – just to name a few! Our best hope right now? He’s the best President this country has ever known! He ha take more crap from every direction – without cause! He stands strong and deals with everything that it tosses at him! (Pelousy and Company)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here