Connect with us

Everything

John Kelly is reason for cautious optimism

Published

on

 

President Trump has had his fair share of studs and duds when it comes to staffing. Mike Pence was certainly a stud VP nomination during the campaign. Since the inauguration, he has paid dividends for Trump with his crucial votes in the Senate have been. Trump also staffed his cabinet with Reince Priebus as a reward for using his political muscles to assist him during his campaign. However, this was a questionable decision at the time. Contrary to popular belief, the Vice President, although next in line for succession, isn’t always second in command with regards to daily operations. The Chief of Staff is effectively the President’s right-hand man.

Under Priebus, there were a lot of leaks, unprofessionalism, and a lack of unified message coming from the Whitehouse. Granted, it’s harder to have a unified message with a less predictable President. But if Reince Priebus made any effort to focus Donald Trump, he failed, and if he made no effort to focus Trump at all, then he was never qualified for the job.

In comes John Kelly, who has immediately set a different tone as reported by Axios. The Whitehouse meetings have become shorter and more concise. The doors are closed so that everyone is there on time and no one is moving in and out as they were before. Efforts like this will slow the prevalent Whitehouse leaks. There is hope that John Kelly will provide the President sage counsel and some indication that Trump will heed it. The report indicates that Trump and his family are amenable towards John Kelly. This shows that John Kelly might bring some much-needed order to Trump’s Whitehouse. By reigning in the meetings, Kelly could help the Trump administration accomplish much of the agenda they promised during the campaign.

The concise meetings may just be a start. Trump is a loose cannon. That’s what Kelly is working with. There is no changing Trump’s core nature, only perhaps directing it. One area of focusing Trump is social media. Being realistic, there is no making Trump log out of twitter. Trump has a powerful tool in which he can garner the whole country’s attention. However, if Kelly can convince Trump to use his platform for more effective messaging rather than starting Twitter wars with Morning Joe or badmouthing his Attorney General, that would be a major improvement for the President. The expectation in this area is low, but if Trump’s social media somehow becomes a more organized message, John Kelly might have just done what no one else has. A more realistic expectation would be better staffing decisions by the Whitehouse because hiring Anthony Scaramucci was a regrettable notion by the Trump administration.

Kelly’s new position may be an indication that Trump wants to be a more disciplined leader. Trump’s compliance with Kelly’s style of running a meeting is likely because it’s a welcomed change by Trump. Whereas Priebus had a more sycophantic relationship with Trump, John Kelly commands a level of respect from Trump and his family that the other Whitehouse staff lack. Perhaps it is clear to them that the shenanigans of the past need to change. Still there’s no one better to demonstrate leadership and enact disciplined than a former general. Some are overly skeptical about Kelly’s ability to reign in Trump or Trump’s willingness to exercise discipline, however we should proceed with cautious optimism. John Kelly is suited for the task.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Judiciary

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case

Published

on

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong

Published

on

Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Education

‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably

Published

on

Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report