Connect with us

Everything

Trump’s presidency: From ‘The Apprentice’ to ‘Survivor’

Published

on

An administration is more than one person. There are cabinet members and staff, who’s job is to execute the policies the President decides upon. There is no doubt that for a Presidency to be successful, a President must “hire the best people.” And so, Donald Trump made the argument that he “hires the best people.”

If only that were true.

Just six months into the Trump Administration, and there has already been some major changes. Reince Priebus is gone as White House Chief of Staff. Anthony Scaramucci was hired as Communications Director and fired less than 2 weeks later. Sean Spicer left as Press Secretary in protest to Scaramucci’s hiring. John Kelly has replaced Priebus as Chief of Staff, leaving a vacancy at the top of Homeland Security.

James Comey was fired as FBI Director in the most unprofessional manner. Justified or not, the President should have fired him in-person. Instead, a public announcement was made, which is how Comey himself learned that he had been sacked.

Should Comey have been fired? Absolutely. His testimony in front of Congress prior to the election, which thoroughly detailed the most-recent criminal acts of Hillary Clinton, yet arguing she should not be charged as “she had no intent,” was downright ridiculous.
The problem is, Trump fired Comey while in the middle of an investigation into Trump and his staff. Comey should have been fired on January 21st. The President fired Comey in the worst way possible and with the worst timing.

Attorney General Sessions has been under the gun. The President, with his typical lack of professionalism, took to social media to chastise Sessions, instead of speaking with him privately. True Conservative and Libertarian-leaning Americans were wary of Sessions from the beginning, due in no small part to his career-long love of the unconstitutional practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Now, that same abuse of government power has been adopted as policy and is being carried-out at the Federal level. Very few liberty-minded people would be sorry to see Sessions go, but that is hardly the point. Apparently, Kelly has since told Sessions that his job is safe… at least for now.

The reverse-side of this hiring trend has also been made manifest. John Koskinen, the Commissioner of the IRS, is still in place. Koskinen gained infamy under the Obama Administration for his alleged role in the targeting of conservative groups by his agency leading-up to and persisting after the 2012 election; as well as his subsequent, highly-questionable responses given to Congress on the same subject. He, like Comey, should have been fired on Jan 21.

H.R. McMaster, another Obama appointee, is now serving as National Security Advisor. McMaster has taken some heat in recent days for the firing of Trump loyalists from the National Security Council, but largely only from those who see serving Trump, not the constitution, as serving the country. If there was going to be a problem, why was he ever hired by Trump in the first place?

Waiters, cable TV salesman at Walmart, and retail employees are jobs where you might expect a high turnover rate. Top-level advisors and Cabinet Members are not. These are people you typically expect to serve the entire first term, and sometimes even into the second, should there be one.

What has taken place thus far is NOT “hiring the best people.” This is a direct result of a President who hasn’t the first clue what he’s doing. Trump, along with his most ardent sycophants, argue that Trump’s problems stem from the so-called “Deep State.” Well, if the Deep State is still in power, doesn’t the blame then lie with Trump for not getting rid of it in the first place?

Sadly, none of this should be surprising. The Trump campaign gave Americans a glimpse into how a future Trump Administration would look. Trump went through a host of campaign managers and advisors, each more disreputable than the last, before settling on Kellyanne Conway to take him through to the end.

It is ridiculous for the President to ever claim he hires the best people. Maybe he does, but it doesn’t count when the best people are hired because they’re then only ones left after everyone else has been hired and fired. It only counts if they are hired as the best person for the position in the first place.

Perhaps Trump will hire the best people, eventually, but America can’t wait forever for him to get there. Six months into this Administration, and very little has been accomplished in a nation that is still reeling from the years of corruption and abuse by the Obama Administration. So far there is no wall, no repeal of Obamacare, and no tax reform. Trump’s cult wants to blame Congress, but they should be blaming Trump.

He’s given no clear direction, and hasn’t focused on any one issue long enough to accomplish any of them. He’s done a good job of repealing some of the Obama-era executive orders, but an EO can change as soon as the next President is in power. And, with the way things are going, that will likely be no later than January 20, 2020. Trump needs to get meaningful legislation passed, but it appears he doesn’t even know how to go about doing that.

Hiring the right staff could help him accomplish such goals, but it seems unlikely that’ll actually happen. Trump’s hiring criteria seems to be centered around who kissed his ring during the election, and the staunch conservatives (not to be confused with the RINO Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol and Jeb Bush) didn’t do that. Trump simply puts his sycophants in place. He seems willing to forgive past critics, like Scaramucci, but only so long as they swear allegiance to Trump himself, and not the Constitution. That isn’t going to make things better.

He needs to privately beg the help of truly effective leaders, men like Scott Walker and Mike Lee. But Trump will never do that, as ‘humility’ isn’t a word this President can spell (as evidenced by his typo-laden tweets), much less embody as a personality trait.
It seems clear that Americans can look forward to at least three and-a-half years of this non-stop reality show in the White House, in lieu of a competent staff and cabinet comprised of truly-effective leaders to run the country. Meaning the longer this drama continues and meaningful legislation continues to fail in Congress, it becomes more and more likely there will ONLY be three and-a-half years, as the odds of Trump winning reelection against any half-decent, non-lifelong criminal nominee, become ever more unlikely.

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