Saturday after

Andrew Malcom takes a look: Of 45 presidents, Trump joins a super-select group who were not politicians. Excluding George Washington, only six of 45 presidents have not come up through the political ranks.

all six have been members of the Republican Party or its predecessor, the Whigs.

Half were retired generals, in effect, military chief executives. Two were wealthy businessmen, successful civilian executives. One was a career government executive who is the only person to ever head the executive and judicial branches of America’s government.

Only two of the six served two terms.

It is really rather remarkable that, over more than 200 years, Americans have chosen presidents outside the swamp more than 10% of the time.

Douglas V. Gibbs provides a bit more evidence than the Intelligence Community did on the Russians supporting his theory for who was involved in trying to corrupt the election: WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Bribed Republicans to Influence Election.

Never mind the Russians. It was Hillary Clinton who was actually trying to sabotage the 2016 Presidential Election, according to a WikiLeaks release.

The information released shows that the Hillary Clinton campaign staffers bribed six Republicans to “destroy Trump”.

The evidence includes an email from John Podesta to Huma Abedin discussing diverting Clinton campaign funds to various Republicans who were secretly on the Clinton payroll.

Ed Morrissey describes why the Inaugural shows ‘The Resistance’ is an attack on democracy.

At a time when the nation set out to celebrate the peaceful transfer of authority, activists on the left descended on the nation’s capital to show just how fragile that can be.

A self-governed nation must have ways to hold elected officials accountable, and the existence of peaceful, law-abiding demonstrations can assure us of the health of our liberty.

That, however, was not what we saw on Inauguration Day. It didn’t start on Inauguration Day, either, or even on Inauguration Eve. This started immediately after the election, when those on the losing side of the election began dubbing themselves “The Resistance.”

This grandiose and pretentious appellation insults those who actually have to live under authoritarian regimes, including Cuba, whose oppressed no longer have the promise of expedited asylum if they manage to reach the United States, thanks to the outgoing president’s actions in the final hours of his term.

Those who lose elections in free countries are the opposition, and can fix that by winning the next election. Instead of asking why they lost, the “resistance” decided to pretend the loss of an election amounts to oppression and have adopted the language of revolution to rally themselves.

That incendiary language didn’t just get adopted by a few on the fringe, but by many on the left, including some in the news and entertainment media.

After they lost, the activist left refuses to accept that fact and instead wants to grab power at the point of a stick, the blunt side of a brick and the business end of a riot. That’s about as far from “anti-fascist” as it gets.

What we have seen in Washington this week is not a rational or lawful exercise of freedom of speech but a violent temper tantrum by those who will accept no governance other than their own rule, regardless of the expressed will of the electorate. That will be a lesson voters should learn and consider for the next election — and beyond.

There are reports that the ACLU has already started filing lawsuits, the carping about personal financial records and imagined conflicts of interest continue unabated, that attacks on the President’s young son have already started, that Democrats are doing everything they can to oppose just because a Republican is trying to do something and taking offense at any slight imagined or otherwise, and hyperbolic excessive pessimism about everything … i.e. business as usual for the Left. The question is whether it will be damped by public shaming or, as it has for the last few years, be fanned into hatred and violence.

The apologists take the ‘everybody does it’ excuse. That is a denial of what is readily evident as the Right does not engage in wholesale riot, property destruction, or adamant opposition no matter the position.

The new President has offered an invitation to all to come aboard and address inner city poverty and violence. Will the Democrats join in the effort or will they continue to oppose and impugn and build walls and isolate themselves? Will they continue to obsess on the words he uses to describe that violence or join in to address the problem?

Comments are closed.