Donald Trump is completely transforming the Democrats

Washington has long been a stranger to principle ... other than the principle of self-advancement. Yet, something new seems to be emerging in the country. Politicians have long felt the need to disguise raw political agendas in the pretense of principle. That pretense is now gone.

In this age of rage, voters seem to have no patience, let alone need, for leaders speaking of abstract principles. They want immediate, unequivocal action in supporting or opposing President Donald Trump. For Democrats, that unequivocal, all-consuming purpose has led to the abandonment of core unifying values, including many that first drew me to the Democratic Party. While they would vehemently deny it, Trump is remaking the party in his inverse image. This past month has shown just how far that transformation has gone.

The remaking of the Democratic Party was most evident last week with the reaction to Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria. There was a time when a sizable number of Democrats opposed undeclared wars and unending military campaigns. Now, however, Democrats are appalled that Trump would not continue a war in one of the myriad countries with U.S. troops engaged in combat operations. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the withdrawal a “Christmas gift to Vladimir Putin,” while Sen.Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and others called it “irresponsible” or “hasty.”

Of course, this “hasty” move is occurring after seven years of intervention in the civil war, including personnel on the ground since 2012. We also have been in Iraq since 2003, and in Afghanistan since 2001. A 2017 study put the real costs of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan at $5.6 trillion since 2001. More importantly, thousands of military personnel have been killed and tens of thousands have been wounded. Yet, Democrats now espouse the same lines that once were denounced during the Bush administration.

Popular cable programs with Democratic and liberal viewers are equally full of recriminations over withdrawing from these wars. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow criticized the plan to withdraw troops as merely an effort to distract the public, despite Trump campaigning in 2016 on promises to withdraw from such wars. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” host (and former GOP congressman) Joe Scarborough denounced Trump as a “quivering coward” who failed to understand that we fight “enemies like ISIS abroad, so we don’t have to fight them in our own schools, churches and airports.” Liberals once rejected the premise that we should engage in continual wars in other countries or face terrorism on our streets.

Democrats are now defined by Trump the way that anti-matter is defined by matter, with each particle of matter corresponding to an anti-participle. Take the secrecy. Democrats once were the party that fought against the misuse of secret-classification laws by the FBI and other agencies. They demanded greater transparency from the executive branch — a position that I have readily supported. Yet, when congressional oversight committees sought documents related to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation of Trump associates, Democrats denounced the very thought that Republicans would question the judgment of the FBI that any such disclosures would be tantamount to “jeopardizing national security.”

Party leaders like Pelosi declared that the committee had moved beyond “dangerous irresponsibility and disregard for our national security” and “disregarded the warnings of the Justice Department and the FBI.” Likewise, the House Intelligence Committee’s Ranking Minority Member, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), expressed shock that the FBI was not given deference in withholding the information.

Yet, when the information was finally forced out of the FBI (including the disclosure of previously redacted material), it was clear that the FBI had engaged in over-classification to shield not national security but to shield the bureau itself from criticism. It included discussion of the roles of high-ranking FBI officials and their reliance on such sources as the Steele Dossier, which were already publicly known. Democratic House members like Schiff presumably knew what was in the redactions and, nevertheless, demanded deference to the classification decisions of the FBI.

Likewise, in supporting the investigation of Trump, Democrats have embraced ever-expanding definitions of crimes like obstruction, conspiracy, and the like. Historically, Democrats have resisted such efforts to stretch the criminal code to criminalize broader and broader areas of conduct. Yet, during the Trump administration, Democrats sound like legal hawks in demanding criminal charges for conduct long treated as civil matters, such as campaign finance violations and foreign-agent registration violations.

In pursuing Trump, the Democrats have also adopted a type of “red scare” mindset. While Republicans long pumped up the Russian menace as a political Cold War narrative, Democrats are now adopting the same type of rhetoric over the Russian attempt to interfere with the 2016 election. Democrats have spoken about how Russians “stole” the election or destroyed the legitimacy of the results, with little empirical data to support such irresponsible, unfounded claims. While many of us support the Mueller investigation and the need for sanctions against Russia for its interference, Democrats now routinely refer to Russia as our “enemy” and accuse people with alleged connections to Russians as “traitors.” Special counsel Robert Mueller may have more to reveal on Russian hacking, but there is little evidence that either the trolling operation or leaked emails of the Hillary Clinton campaign had a material impact on the 2016 presidential election.

In building up the Russian menace, Democrats ignore that we have not only hacked the emails of our enemies but of our allies as well for years. Moreover, we have routinely intervened in or influenced foreign elections. Likewise, other nations — from Israel to Mexico to China, and many more — have long tried to influence our elections. Still, Democrats are escalating their calls for greater action against Russia, including criticism of being too dovish in not confronting Russian military elements around the world.

A party requires more than an all-consuming hatred for an individual. A party has to stand for something that transcends the immediate or the visceral. Yet, in the age of Trump, the public is not interested in nuance or niceties. The watchword is “resist” and that means resist at all costs — even to core values. In other words, the question is not what the Democratic Party will do but what it will be, after Donald Trump eventually leaves office.

Mick Mulvaney Highlights Nancy Pelosi Position to Weaponize Government Shutdown as Part of Coordinated Resistance Agenda…

Posted on December 28, 2018 by sundance

Incoming chief of staff Mick Mulvaney gives an impromptu press briefing to the media highlighting the position of incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the democrat intention to weaponize the government shutdown.

Career Democrats are working through a highly coordinated political agenda, defended by institutional media allies, that involve weaponizing the House of Representatives.

Mulvaney: Trump willing to shutdown border

White House on the battle for border wall funding

If we take the empirical 2006 example as the starting point and overlay the 2018 landscape to modernize the predictive model, what results is a most likely scenario.

First, any intellectually honest review must overlay the current political environment. In 2018 the scale of unchecked lawless behavior is a significant influence toward the differences we can expect from the last time Democrat/Marxists held congressional power. The term “Democrat-socialism”, in essence a Marxist approach, is now the dominant fuel within the professional DNC political operations.

When the Democrats last held power in 2006, their actionable objective was toward a far-left, Saul Alinsky-type aggressive tone and influence; however, there was a need to couch that intention as they positioned Senator Barack Obama for the 2008 presidential election.

In 2006 the radicals, needed to downplay their radicalism. In 2018 the severity and aggression of the left, as assisted by the dropping of all media pretense, no longer needs to hide the intention. When Democrat-Marxists take control in January of 2019 they no longer need to couch the extremism, the American electorate have been prepped.

Secondly, it cannot be overstated how violent and confrontational the House of Representatives will be as soon as they are sworn in. They will work with an immediate purposeful intention. All political violence will be approved to attain their objectives. The recent behavior of Jim Acosta (CNN media), and ANTIFA toward Tucker Carlson, is now, and will be going forward, the new normal.

There will be extreme political violence.

In 2006 it was the SEIU and AFSCME union foot-soldiers who smashed windows, advanced upon polling places and engaged in the most severe examples of voter fraud and intimidation. In 2018, with the help of uber-Alinsky DNC Chairman Tom Perez, that corrupt sentiment is now institutionalized within democrat-socialist political apparatus. ANTIFA is now the DNC grassroots activist approach.

Failing to accept the severity of this shift in the past decade is intellectually dishonest. As Nancy Pelosi said of the Occupy Wall Street violent anarchists: “God bless these people.” Indeed the OWS precursor to ANTIFA were laying the groundwork for the new severity of power in Democrat leadership. Nothing is out-of-bounds; no level of corrupt behavior will be avoided; everything will happen openly and without any backlash from a compliant media apparatus; the social fabric will be shredded.

The Democrat mantra: “never let a crisis go to waste” is the modern version of the Fabian-Socialist: “remould it closer to the heart’s desire“. Both approaches rely upon the destruction of acceptable norms in order to advance the political objective.

♦ Specifics:

When Democrats last took power in January 2007, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer took control in the final two years of George Bush second term. Immediately they set about a process laying the groundwork for the 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama. This was a priority objective.

One of the techniques was the removal of the budget process. By eliminating the federal budget process in 2007 (fiscal year ’08) the Democrats paved the way for the next democrat president to demand massive open-ended spending.

By the time the year of the general election came around (2008), the lengthy budget process was replaced with Omnibus spending bills (fiscal year 2009). Obviously when Obama was successfully installed in November of 2008, the useful crisis was financial. The subsequent TARP bailout, auto bailout, ARRA ($1 trillion stimulus) and QE1 were all accomplished with massive omnibus spending packages.

[NOTE: These are important references because from that moment forward, despite the GOP taking back control in January 2011, the constraining budgetary process was forever destroyed. There was never regular-order budgetary spending again.]

It is also critical to emphasize the difference between Democrats taking control in the last two years of Bush’s second term, and Democrats taking control in the last two years of Trump’s first term. Within this difference you will predictably see a shift in strategic operations from the Marxists.

George W Bush was exiting, and unlimited spending was used to empower the entry of Obama; however, now the Marxists need to knee-cap President Trump by weaponizing the power of the purse – the biggest weapon of the House of Representatives.

After a ten year UniParty hiatus the Marxists will now go back to using budgets in the structural defunding and dismantling of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the Southern Border Wall, and any program, initiative, policy or institution the Marxists want to see removed. This is a strategy of the Democrat crisis-makers; and they are exceptionally better at achieving their desired results than Republicans.

When it comes to political weaponization and political power constructs the Marxists have exceptional work ethics; they will outwork anyone on the other side who opposes them. They are far, far, better at political strategy and scheme than conservative politicians. Part of the reason for their success is that crooks, cons and swindlers are far more cunning than honorable, virtuous and moral people. It is unfortunate, but true; and the same truth applies beyond politics.

♦ Two other thoughts on this issue.

First, you might remember when this massive spending, and the government takeover of healthcare, led to the Marxists losing the 2010 midterm election in a massive defeat. But do you remember what the democrats did in the lame-duck congress between November 2010 and January 2011?

Does the term “Porkulous” ring a bell?

While 63 democrat seats were lost in the November 2010 election (and six democrat senate seats), those exiting Marxists, despite just having suffered the worst defeat in almost 100 years, audaciously –and apologetically– voted in the December 2010 lame-duck session, to fully fund President Obama’s next two years in office. This was done by Speaker Nancy Pelosi specifically to block the incoming GOP wave from upending the priorities of the Obama administration in 2011. That was called the “Porkulous” spending bill; and the democrat-marxists didn’t give a snit about how it looked.

Now, did Speaker Paul Ryan or Senate Leader Mitch McConnell do anything as bold to fund and secure the budgetary priorities of President Donald Trump in this lame-duck?

No, UniParty.

Secondly, about the overall unilateral commitment and cunning historically displayed by the Marxists. They are so committed to the long-term view they are willing to sacrifice anything for the biggest, most consequential, advances toward their objectives. In 2010 the democrats killed their own “blue-dog” coalition to advance their ideological goals.

Within the 63 House seats the Marxists lost in that 2010 midterm election; they killed off the entire 40 member Bart Stupak coalition; the blue-dog caucus. Totally willing to sacrifice 40 seats to attain a generational ideological objective (ObamaCare); and they are about to step back into power a mere eight years later. Stunning when you think about it.

Few people have any idea just how bad these next two years are going to be. We are the normal people who don’t spend every moment of our day scheming, conniving, and developing plans to dismantle the lives of your freedom loving community and rebuild it as a collective society. For these political Marxists who are about to take power that’s all they do. Every moment of their existence they spend thinking about how to gain power and dominate, 24/7/365 that is all they do.

That is all the ever talk about; that is all they ever converse with each-other about. Every second of every moment, in every meeting, is consumed with plots, plans and strategies for indulging themselves and growing power at all costs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.