Connect with us

Everything

Will Trump’s presidency survive?

Published

on

So far, President Trump has gone through a Chief of Staff, Press Secretary, two Communications Directors (Spicer counts, along with Scaramucci’s disastrous 11 days), a National Security Adviser, an FBI Director, nearly an Attorney General (the jury is still out), a Homeland Security Director (he tapped the serving one to be the new CoS) and a Chief Strategist. He’s been in office just over 200 days.

This pace of turnover is completely unsustainable.

No large organization could long survive this kind of turmoil, and the United States requires, above all, stability. Free countries look to America for stability in a world filled with Venezuelas, Syrias and Brexits. America under Trump is not stable.

Trump’s presidency is based on about 25 percent of Americans who love him no matter what he does. It’s based on constant entertainment, lots of light with no heat–or heat without light depending on how you look at things. A Republican Congress, under Trump, has been able to do nearly nothing besides appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. Great: Neil Gorsuch is wonderful, but not enough.

Rex Tillerson, James Mattis and Vice President Mike Pence have spent the last six months traveling the world (but not at the same time–someone has to mind the Romper Room Oval Office) cleaning up Trump’s Twitter-diarrheic messes. Tillerson has unfilled posts at the State Department that Steve Bannon blocked because he the candidates didn’t pass his dogmatic filter.

Now Bannon is gone, along with Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer. The White House is run by Trump, his family and a couple of four-star generals. I trust the generals–mostly.

Either some discipline will be instilled, or Trump’s presidency is in danger. It’s not necessarily in danger from impeachment, because they’d have to find something impeachable. Congress does have the Constitutional authority to impeach for whatever reason it wants, but it doesn’t have the political backing to do it.

I haven’t looked at numbers, but I’d be willing to bet that the polarized elements of the American polity were just as polarized under Presidents Obama and Bush 43 as they are now. I’d bet that about 25 percent of Americans would have supported Barack Obama if he had murdered someone in the street, and another 25 percent opposed him no matter what he did. With the exception of a six month period after 9/11, I think the same thing about George W. Bush.

But Trump has made the polarization so much worse. Were Congress to attempt to impeach him, I believe violence would erupt.

So where does that leave us?

The over/under

Some of the writers here and myself have had a discussion of where things might go from here. Jesse Broadt has written her own piece calling for Trump’s removal under the 25th Amendment, section 4. That’s certainly a possibility, but again, it takes 2/3 of Congress to ratify.

Here’s our take.

Paige Rogers:

I walked out of the voting booth and, as I was walking to my car I kept thinking, “This is the 1st time I’ve voted and not been excited about it.”

I think America would end up in a civil war if Trump were to be removed, and maybe even if he we’re to resign on his own accord. Regular people became so disenchanted [and unfortunately, were sometimes disenfranchised] by the time Obama’s 2nd term ended. A vote is a vote and I think it should stand, bc I’d like for our Democratic process to remain intact. I am praying for our country and all our leaders!

Eric Dixon:

Trump is a stubborn and iconoclastic man who will be determined to prove his detractors wrong. He is capable of having (and likely to have) isolated but significant successes. 

In fact, Trump’s presidential political trajectory (if not his philosophy or temperament) can follow Ronald Reagan’s. Reagan’s approval ratings dove early in his first term as the economy fell back into recession in 1982-83, and his re-election was in great doubt going into the summer of 1984. Likewise, if Trump gets his troubles “out of the way” early in his first term, he has plenty of room — and plenty of time — to recover to a point where he can rehabilitate his presidency and his re-election prospects. I think he will serve a full term. 

A full second term. 

Dan Alexander:

I think he will serve the full first term, unfortunately. Then, sensing his own demise in the 2020 campaign, he will not seek re-election. I think he would rather step down than suffer a loss. 

Jeremy Frankel:

To be honest at that point I was sort of warmed up to Trump and was very happy about my vote because how scared I was of Hillary. I don’t regret my vote but I was pretty upset that he was the best choice there.

I do still reiterate that it seems that the one thing people fear more than Trump is the Left and the media (Hence many conservative voters). Which is why his base hasn’t shrunk much at all, throughout all the chaos.

Me:

I don’t think Trump can change. I don’t think the country can suffer him for 3 1/2 more years. The immovable object will continue to resist the unstoppable force.

I believe Trump will realize that the government cannot work with him as its leader. Congress will cease to function as a lawmaking body. The executive branch will cease to function in any capacity other than a administrative factotum.

Other nations will take advantage of American instability. We may find ourselves in an unintentional, limited but intense war. We might find ourselves withdrawing like cowards in the face of much weaker nations.

In the end, I believe Trump will resign, simply because being president will not be an enjoyable or uplifting experience any longer. The rallies will cease to be a salve for his ego. He will be alone, isolated, and unable to focus on anything but his many enemies.

He never wanted to win anyway.

Some closing thoughts

Eric Dixon supplied some happy thoughts for the weekend at the close of what’s been a terrible, awful, tumultuous week full of death and uncertainty. We could use some sunshine.

I don’t think the nation is past a tipping point.

Why? Consider what the vast majority of Americans, of all backgrounds, are doing this weekend.

They’re not thinking about Charlottesville, statues of dead men or Steve Bannon.

They’re thinking about vacations, going to the beach, a NASCAR race or the upcoming football season.

Plenty of young people are thinking about…how can I say this delicately?…reproduction. 

The supermarkets are full, gasoline is half the price it was in 2008, electricity is plentiful (and often cheaper than it used to be), the Internet is running, half the country has smartphones.

Trump could resign tonight, and none of the above will change. 

These are all signs of a confident, content — if somewhat under-informed — people, aren’t they?

Serial entrepreneur. Faith, family, federal republic. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Trump’s proposal to defund Planned Parenthood under Title X is fake news

Published

on

Last week, Donald Trump, the self-absorbed occupant of the White House who routinely rails against news outlets that print unfavorable news stories and refers to them as “Fake News,” engaged in a bit of his own version of fake news with his announcement that he would be defunding Planned Parenthood.

Calling it the “Protect Life Rule,” Trump proposed withholding $50-$60 million received by Planned Parenthood each year under the government’s Title X Family Planning program, which is used to provide family planning services to low-income individuals.

If the proposal is accepted—an unknown outcome since Trump provided no details on what it would look like—it will model a regulation first implemented by Ronald Reagan and modified over the years.

Despite claims by Ingraham—one of the many members of the so-called conservative media on the Trump Train—this is a fake news story because it doesn’t defund Planned Parenthood, a fact confirmed by a White House official on the day of the announcement.

“This proposal does not necessarily defund Planned Parenthood, as long as they’re willing to disentangle taxpayer funds from abortion as a method of family planning, which is required by the Title X law.”

Under the proposal, as long as Planned Parenthood uses taxpayer money to pay for what “candidate Trump once called the “good work” they do and not for the “relatively small part of the business” known as abortion, the largest provider of baby-killing services in America will continue receiving every penny of Title X funds they want.

Even if successful, Trump’s proposal is nothing more that a restatement of existing law. It’s been illegal for Planned Parenthood to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions ever since the Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976, even though Planned Parenthood still receives federal funds that have now reached over half-a-billion dollars a year.

How is this possible? It’s because money is fungible.

By providing Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money, other funds are freed up to bankroll the murder of over 321,000 unborn babies a year. To put it another way, Planned Parenthood is able to make nearly all of its non-government revenue from killing babies because taxpayers are paying for everything else.

Of course, with 2018 being an election year and the GOP in serious danger of being wiped out by a Blue Tsunami come November, Trump’s fake news announcement fits right in with the rest of the GOP’s election-year game plan where recycled campaign promises are used to cover a track record of ineptitude and cowardice.

Much like the House “show votes” earlier this year regarding term limits and late-term abortions, this proposal by the man evangelicals are calling “the most pro-life president in history” is simply the latest effort by Trump and the GOP to get conservatives to the polls to vote Republican in November while doing absolutely nothing to defund Planned Parenthood.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Will school shootings be the next step toward a nationalized police force?

Published

on

The recent shooting at Santa Fe High School outside Houston, TX, that resulted in ten dead and thirteen wounded is fueling another round of demands by liberals in Congress to pass more anti-gun laws “to protect our kids” with some blaming the NRA for preventing such laws from being passed.

While conservatives and those who claim to be conservative willingly point fingers at the Democrat side of the aisle, the sad fact is that many Republicans agree with Democrats on the issue of gun control.

For example, after blaming local police for the Parkland, FL. high school shooting in February, Trump held a bipartisan meeting with members of congress where he openly supported the idea of seizing guns from Americans who committed no crime, even if it violated their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

Weeks later, Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos wrote an opinion piece praising Trump for signing the disastrous Omnibus bill because it contained over $700 million to fund the STOP School Violence Act to pay for so-called mental health services designed to prevent school shootings. DeVos’ rhetoric aside, Rep. Thomas Massey (R-KY) stated in an interview with Conservative Review at the time that the STOP SVA essentially nationalized public-school safety.

I think that nationalizing public-school safety is the ultimate goal of big-government progressives. It’s been building for quite some time now, and I think the hype over recent school shootings will be the thing that puts it over the top.

The desire to create a nationalized police force began gaining traction under the Obama administration. Consider the actions of the Congressional Black Caucus following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. In a letter to then-president Obama, the CBC demanded the appointment of a Police Czar to give the feds control over the local police. Not long afterward, Al Sharpton called for a march on Washington to demand the DOJ to take control of the police nationwide.

Though neither of these efforts came to fruition, Obama succeeded in laying the groundwork for a nationalized police force by leveraging a series of tragedies into policies giving the DOJ control over local police forces in several communities across America.

Trump has bought into the idea of federal control of local police since becoming president, threatening to “send in the feds” in January, 2017 to clean up Chicago after a FOX News report about gun violence in the Windy City.

Shortly after the Santa Fe tragedy, Trump demanded action “at every level of government” which is exactly what he said following the FL shooting. This led to the creation of a host of anti-Second Amendment proposals by Republicans and Democrats designed to disarm Americans and place armed security in every public school.

Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with working to make schools safer, but with Washington working 24/7 to limit our Constitutional rights, should we give the federal government and the Department of Homeland Security that power?

Before you answer, do you remember how George Bush and a fully compliant Congress federalized airport security and created The Transportation Security Administration in the name of “safety” following 9/11? Besides creating tens of thousands of lifetime unionized government jobs, and the likely violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, these “transportation security officers” have been an abysmal failure.

Federal control of school security essentially creates a type of nationalized police force. Doing it “for the children” doesn’t change that.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Kentucky Primary

Published

on

Kentucky is the state that gave us Rand Paul. He is the biggest highlight, however he is not alone like Ben Sasse in Nebraska. Thomas Massie is also a strong Conservative. This primary has a chance to unseat a major swamp creature. Aside from this one race, there wasn’t much action to be had. Mitch McConnell shows that Kentucky does not have a rich history in holding bad politicians accountable. So if there are any Conservative victories in Kentucky, they should be celebrated vocally.

Best Pick: Geraldo Serrano
Worst Picks: Harold Rogers, Chuck Eddy, Andy Barr
Best Race: District 5
Worst Race: District 6

District 1

James Comer is more fiscally responsible than most RINOs, but he still voted for Omnibus. He is unopposed.

District 2

Bill Gutherie is an unopposed RINO.

District 3

Three Republicans look to win Louisville. The first is Vicky Glisson. She is running a limited issues campaign focused on drugs, healthcare, and a hint of fiscal responsibility. Next is Rhonda Palazzo, the most upfront Conservative in the race. She is a real estate agent and devout Christian. Her stance is overly simplistic, to a fault. Lastly is Mike Craven. His platform is also too simplistic. This race is a three way crapshoot in terms of determining the best candidate.

Conservative Pick: Rhonda Palazzo

District 4

Since 2012, Thomas Massie has been a solid Conservative. He is unopposed.

District 5

Harold Rogers is a decades experienced swamp creature, 33 years in the making. Gerardo Serrano is his challenger. Serrano has Rand Paul potential in both foreign and domestic policy, such as FISA. His website features a unique story of him and a county sheriff, where he held a sheriff accountable when the 2nd amendment was in danger. (The sheriff wasn’t a villain in the story).

I especially like his twitter handle. Geraldo Serrano is a strong candidate, and we desperately as a nation need to unseat swamp monsters such as Harold Rogers.

Conservative Pick: Geraldo Serrano

District 6

Andy Barr is another RINO with a horrendous spending record. He is being challenged by Chuck Eddy. This was a huge disappointment.

I don’t believe he realizes how much a massive walking contradiction he is.

Conservative Pick: None, Barr will undoubtedly win

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.