Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 188: Radicalism and tyranny to define the next Democrat president

White House
“Put your money where your mouth is.” It’s a saying we’ve all heard a million times, mostly before the age of majority, the occasion in everyone’s life when friends and siblings stop betting you don’t know what you’re talking about and assume you’re telling them the truth, even if you’ve just said something outlandish or unfathomable.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve bet my kids a hundred bucks on a subject when I knew they were wrong. I could retire comfortably today… but they wisely never accepted the wagers… and didn’t have the money to pay up anyway.

At any rate the Trump campaign is doing very well in fundraising thus far into the 2020 campaign cycle -- no bets necessary -- proof positive the president will have plenty of means to put money where his mouth is when the time comes. Republicans received some very good news on the cash front last week. Dave Boyer reported at The Washington Times, “President Trump’s reelection campaign and the Republican National Committee raised a combined $105 million in the second quarter, with $100 million cash on hand. The Trump campaign and its committees pulled in $54 million, while the RNC raised $51 million.

“’Our massive fundraising success is a testament to the overwhelming support for President Trump,’ said Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale. ‘No Democrat candidate can match this level of enthusiasm or President Trump’s outstanding record of results.’

“RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said the ‘record-breaking’ fundraising is allowing the GOP to ‘identify troves of new supporters online and continue investing in our unprecedented field program.’”

Boyer’s article additionally provided a comparison figure, indicating Barack Obama’s campaign and the DNC raised a combined $86 million in 2011 during the same time frame. Even accounting for inflation, Trump’s take is considerably larger -- not bad for a guy who the media claims is roundly unpopular and should only be able to count on loyal support from his “depolorables” base full of racist backwoods country bumpkins who don’t have any teeth much less extra money to contribute to political campaigns. And let’s not forget, Trump’s a rich guy who can fund his own effort, right? If there’s so much resentment “out there” towards wealthy people, where’s all the envy where billionaire Trump is concerned?

Fundraising figures at this point in the political cycle don’t mean a whole lot but they do signify whether there’s sufficient enthusiasm for a party and a president over a year before anyone votes (in the general election). Excited people write checks; dissatisfied folks spend their money on other things. Ever the marketing specialist, Trump has been exceptionally effective in “selling” his presidency from day one, frequently traveling the country to hold campaign-style rallies in support of his policies and, well, himself.

All along Trump’s not exactly begged people to pull out their checkbooks and send in contributions, but it doesn’t hurt that he’s remained extremely visible via social media and continues to draw news coverage by the bucketful (which he believes is beneficial, even if negative). The Democrats’ two debates last month were almost like Republican fundraising informercials in themselves, with liberal party presidential hopefuls repeatedly invoking the president’s name as well as articulating a host of wacko policies that scare the bejesus out of sane people.

Whenever Democrats talk about decriminalizing illegal immigration, providing free healthcare to illegal aliens and taxpayer funding for abortions for “transgender women” (who don’t even have uteruses) it gets people concerned -- and animated. It also serves to make President Trump look more “moderate” than his would-be opponents, something that will definitely benefit him in the closing stretches of the campaign next year.

What would having another Democrat president mean? We don’t have to wonder any longer. Instead of watching Sunday morning news programs and liberal cable channel talk shows, all we need to do is to listen to the candidates themselves. The RNC should consider spending some of its burgeoning cash stash to sponsor more nationally televised Democrat debates -- the more the nimrods talk, the better it is for keeping Republicans in power.

Needless to say, it looks like Trump will also have a strong coattail effect on the GOP down-ballot, giving the party an excellent chance to retake the House and maintain control in the senate. Numerous news reports indicated Democrats are having a hard time recruiting top-tier senate challengers in supposedly winnable Republican-held states. Is it all bluster? What’s “vulnerable” in today’s political environment?

Judging by the number of times Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s name was invoked in the aforementioned candidate forums it’s clear Democrats are frustrated by their inability to get any of their disastrous agenda enacted. Even if one of them managed to beat Trump next year, with Republicans guarding the senate doors, they’d have zero chance of passing “Medicare for All”, the “Green New Deal”, universal college tuition or any other liberal pipedream. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, “Pocahontas” Warren, “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders and crew can promise stuff ‘til they’re blue in the face -- but they’ll go nowhere without Republican acquiescence.

“Pocahontas” was asked how she’d hope to confirm her judicial nominees with McConnell presiding over the upper chamber, and she essentially argued she’d just fight even harder (and all of them said they’d use Roe v Wade as a “litmus test” for appointments -- isn’t such a thing taboo?). Hmpf. Warren will beat the war drums and concoct her own rain dance to try and move the needle, but it won’t mean anything unless Democrats have the numbers.

The thought alone of one of these Democrats as president should be sufficient motivation for sensible Americans to send money to Trump and/or the RNC, though conservatives would be better off supporting the president and individual liberty-loving congressional and senate candidates rather than contributing directly to party committees (like the NRCC or NRSC). Party committees have consistently failed to underwrite good qualified conservatives when the establishment doesn’t approve of them, a death blow to many good candidates -- it could prove fatal next year, too.

As it is, Democrats need to defeat several Republican incumbents to elevate Chuck Schumer to the majority leader’s chair in 2021. As if this weren’t already a tough enough slog, there are rumors West Virginia Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin might resign his seat early in order to run for governor (and with a Republican governor appointing his replacement… well…). When paired with the almost certain loss of the Alabama race (assuming Republicans choose a good electable conservative candidate with grassroots backing), Democrats can’t afford to lose another one of their own and still hope to oust McConnell.

Systemic barriers exist to prevent pretty much everything Democrats offer in the legislative arena. Meanwhile, Trump’s delivered on many of his promises; 2020 Democrats are full of hot air and unrealistic expectations. But they still insist they’ll push through their sinister aims -- by executive force, if necessary. Emily Larsen reported at The Washington Examiner, “Democratic presidential hopefuls have plenty of ideas on how to achieve their policy goals without congressional approval…

“[E]xplaining how to create substantive change without Congress is a key part of Democrats' presidential campaigns, and some White House hopefuls have gotten creative with their plans not only to reverse Trump's actions but to advance their own agendas through executive action.

“Cory Booker pledged to create a ‘White House Office of Reproductive Freedom,’ which would work to advance ‘abortion rights and access to reproductive health care.’ The New Jersey senator also said he would use the president's power to grant clemency to about 17,000 nonviolent drug offenders. Kamala Harris promises to take executive action to ban assault-style weapons and mandate near-universal background checks if Congress does not pass gun safety legislation in her first 100 days as president…”

So in other words, a newly sworn-in Democrat would take his or her copy of the Constitution he or she receives along with other official papers on inauguration day and toss it into the nearest round file, probably not even waiting until reaching the White House grounds to do it. Create a “White House Office of Reproductive Freedom”? Really? Or ban guns? Didn’t King George III try to do that? Didn’t we just celebrate Independence Day?

Democrat bluster should be taken seriously because history proves they mean what they say and will employ any means necessary to get what they want. If Obama had no qualms about legalizing five million (or more) aliens with a single stroke of his pen, who’s to say a new Democrat president wouldn’t completely halt border policing or quit enforcing all the immigration laws. Or he or she would use the power of the executive branch to nitpick and harass pro-life groups to extinction.

Democrats have never shown restraint or a willingness to accept process when their end results were threatened by common sense and an inability to win elections. Americans learned their lesson with Obama -- do they really require a refresher course in tyranny?

Conservatives should be willing to put their money where their mouth is next year when President Trump takes on his socialistic out-of-touch Democrat opponent. Democrat presidential candidates have sworn they’ll accomplish their aims by any means necessary. Would the republic survive?

Share this