Share This Article with a Friend!


Transition to Trump: Americans won’t have to choose between guns and butter with Trump

It’s a tune Republicans and Democrats have been dancing to for decades. Every two years (and is especially true in presidential elections) the parties forget all about what they’ve been doing in the recent past and place special emphasis on getting the federal budget under control.

For their part the Republicans emphasize the need to trim the massive social spending included in every fiscal year and highlight immoral outlays for groups such as Planned Parenthood and the hopelessly mislabeled Donald TrumpNational Endowment for the Arts in addition.

The GOP also touches on the massive waste, fraud and abuse that invariably occurred at the top levels.

Democrats, on the other hand, love to kick the military. They say, “Why do we need to keep spending ourselves into bankruptcy when we already have enough weapons to blow up the entire world hundreds of times over?” Clearly Democrats would rather devote that money to their own pet projects such as relocating refugees from terrorist-plagued parts of the world to America or adding more weeks of government assistance for the chronically unemployed or disabled.

No fraud or waste involved in their priorities, right?

In comes Donald Trump in 2016 who campaigned on a platform of making “great deals” throughout the federal government in order to balance the budget. Trump promised a lot – both beefing up a military that’s suffered under the intentional abuse and neglect of the Obama administration and balancing the defense budget at the same time.

Is it possible to do both?

Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports, “In recent years, the GOP's position on defense spending has been one long protest against sequester limits. The nation should spend more on the Pentagon, Hill Republicans have argued. At times, GOP lawmakers have seemed considerably less concerned about the billions the Department of Defense throws away every year.

“Trump can change that. While the president-elect still wants to spend more on defense, he has given just as high a profile to his desire to cut waste. It could be a popular combination.”

Waste in military spending isn’t exactly a new concept. Whenever the inspector general issues a report it seems Americans hear about hammers that cost hundreds of dollars or thousands more blown on toilet seats. It’s as if all the taxpayers are getting where the armed forces are concerned is a bunch of gold-plated junk that costs too much and doesn’t work.

There’s something to it all right. But Americans also instinctively understand we have the finest military in the world, capable of striking anywhere within minutes or hours and deploying in force within days or weeks. Every one of us rests easy knowing the fine men and women in arms are keeping a watchful eye on the interests of the homeland.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t room to improve and save. Anyone who lives in the Washington DC area knows a huge part of the defense budget is devoted to personnel salaries and maintenance. In addition, our country still stations tens of thousands of troops in Asia and Europe under the guise of protecting our allies against Russian, Chinese or North Korean aggression.

As a result, NATO deserves a fresh look from American policymakers. For every Republican (well, mostly just John McCain and Lindsey Graham) who contends that tiny countries like Montenegro should join the organization there are others (like Trump and Rand Paul) who argue that NATO’s mission should either be updated or the member countries themselves must devote a larger share of their GDP for their own protection.

Other questions should be asked, and hopefully will be under a Trump administration. Do we really need to have tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed along the South Korea/North Korean border when the South Korean population and economy dwarfs that of its northern enemy?

And as conservative Pat Buchanan has spent a lifetime questioning, should we still be spending billions to quarter American forces in Europe when World War II is 70 years in the past and the Iron Curtain officially fell over 25 years ago?

It only makes sense that Donald Trump can make good on his promise to upgrade the military AND be able to find cost savings at the same time. As York points out in his article, such a combination will be popular with the American public and amount to keeping an important campaign promise.

Perhaps it will finally be possible to have guns and butter simultaneously. The next few years will determine the answer.

Hypocritical media now implying Trump is selling cabinet appointments to donors

All throughout his presidential campaign Donald Trump was never shy about telling everyone who asked how rich and successful he is. Trump even answered questions in debates touting how being ridiculously wealthy was one of his major qualifications for the office of the presidency.

Needless to say, Trump also never hesitated to boast about (mostly) self-funding his own campaign and the freedom from special interest influence that goes along with it.

At the same time, Trump set records for the number of small contributions he received during the general election campaign, even earning the label of “the Republican Obama” from some observers. But of course there were big donors to his effort too. Now that Trump won the election, are these folks being given an unfair advantage?

Isaac Arnsdorf of Politico reports, “All together the 73 donors contributed $1.7 million to Trump and groups supporting him, according to a POLITICO analysis of Federal Election Commission records, and $57.3 million to the rest of the party, averaging more than $800,000 per donor.

“Donors also represent 39 percent of the 119 people Trump reportedly considered for high-level government posts, and 38 percent of those he eventually picked, according to the analysis, which counted candidates named by the transition and in news reports.”

Arnsdorf further added, “[T]he extent to which donors are stocking Trump’s administration is unparalleled in modern presidential history, due in part to the Supreme Court decisions that loosened restrictions on campaign contributions…”

It wouldn’t be a leftist media report without throwing in a dig at Citizens United and free speech. Liberals hate it.

You had to figure the media was going to use this “Trump is bought and paid for” angle at some point, but the implication that Trump is “selling” administration positions to donors goes farther than even I ever anticipated.

It was only a matter of time before the media started accusing Trump of selling access and engaging in pay-for-play. Whereas there’s no tangible evidence of Trump actually accepting money for appointments the temptation to suggest such a scheme is going on at Trump transition headquarters is proving too much for the left to ignore.

In contrast, there appears to be reams of proof that Hillary and Bill Clinton actually did sell influence and access in exchange for contributions to the Clinton Foundations (remember Bill Clinton Inc.?). With Trump the “proof” does not exist. In Trump’s case you’ve only got a rich guy who ran for president and accepted contributions from friends to his campaign.

Didn’t Hillary do the same thing for her presidential run? Were all the Hollywood celebrities and movie studio executives forking over checks to Hillary because they believed she’s the second coming of Mother Theresa?

Especially surprising about the liberals’ alarm on this matter is the discrepancy in the size of the contributions. Using the numbers quoted above, only a tiny fraction actually went to Trump’s campaign with the rest going to the Republican Party itself. It certainly begs the question -- wouldn’t many of these same people have given similar amounts to the GOP even if Trump wasn’t in the race?

And if Trump is so “rich,” why would he need to sell influence in the first place? What would he hope to gain? Do the media and the Democrats seriously believe Trump is only doing all of this to line his pockets?

The Clintons were notorious for enriching themselves after leaving office by selling speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars and sponging off any wealthy admirers who were dumb enough to pay them.

As would be expected, the Politico article uses as authorities Trump enemies such as Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, a leader in the neoconservative #NeverTrump movement. Ornstein called Trump a hypocrite for asking a few donors to join his cabinet -- as if it’s not possible for these people to separate their political preferences from a desire to serve the public.

If that’s the case then Democrats wouldn’t be able to find anyone to serve in their campaigns.

Normally I would dismiss such useless media reports as sour grapes and typical leftist propaganda, but they do offer a glimpse into what to expect in the coming weeks when Trump’s cabinet and administration appointees go before the Senate for confirmation hearings. Arnsdorf’s article indicates that 17 current senators received contributions from Betsy DeVos, Trump’s nominee for Education secretary.

And they’ll all be voting on her appointment.

Will any of this prevent Trump’s people from being confirmed? Highly unlikely. But it’s just the latest salvo in the long leftist war to discredit Trump and his nominees before they even take office. After all, if the media thinks they can erode Trump’s base of support, he’ll fail.

Here’s guessing it won’t work. Trump never released his tax returns and people didn’t care. They similarly didn’t worry about his controversial statements either.

Americans did care about making a change in government. All the Politico articles and contribution figures in the world aren’t going to change that fact one bit.

The social media war over Donald Trump has only just started

There’s little doubting Americans went to the polls on November 8 with change on their minds, but only a very small percentage were willing to throw away their votes on outlier candidates like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

And then there’s Evan McMullin, the darling of the #NeverTrump movement. McMullin is actually still around, using his twitter account to make outlandish claims that the media is all too willing to pick up and echo as if McMullin’s words were the gospel truth.

Mark Hensch of The Hill reports, “Former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin says the GOP needs new leadership to solve its struggles with racism...

“McMullin, who ran as a conservative alternative to President-elect Donald Trump, added Republicans must unite against racism before they win over minority voters.”

McMullin was commenting on some over-the-top stupid remarks from Trump supporter Carl Paladino about the Obamas, an attempt at humor that was so lame I doubt anyone takes them seriously – even Paladino himself.

Never mind the fact that if no one is there to hear them Paladino’s dumb utterances don’t make a sound – and certainly don’t apply to Trump. McMullin picked up on the backlash over Paladino and saw an opportunity to get his name in the news again. We know for sure that at least the staff at The Hill was listening.

Right about now I’m wondering just how many of the hundreds of thousands who couldn’t stomach Trump (and voted for McMullin) are saying, “What was I thinking?”

Not that Trump has likely won over all – or even most – of his pre-election detractors, but this bozo McMullin comes from nowhere, is a nobody himself and yet offers opinions as though people should listen to him and take him seriously.

He’s like the guy in the back of your junior high school class without any friends who keeps spouting off to gain attention from the teacher.

In contrast to McMullin, fellow #NeverTrumper David French actually showed some objectivity in coming to the Republican Party’s defense after a leftist uproar began over a Christmas message.

W. James Antle III of the Washington Examiner reports, “A leading conservative critic of Donald Trump was among the first to defend the Republican National Committee against charges it had crowned the president-elect king or compared him to Jesus Christ on Christmas…

“French isn't some religious conservative apologist for President-elect Trump. He was such an ardent critic of the New York businessman that he was briefly recruited to be Never Trump's independent conservative candidate for president in opposition to the Republican nominee, a position eventually filled by Evan McMullin.”

If you haven’t heard about the controversy, Antle’s article contains the full story. The point here is even someone like David French can see through meaningless media hysteria intended solely to damage Trump and the GOP.

The battle will continue well into Trump’s presidency. With social media fanning the flames, expect many a fire that will need to be extinguished by those with common sense.

Share this

Seadragon

Whatever you do you must NEVER believe what comes out of the Satanic influenced Main Stream Media. As soon as President Trump takes office, they will be going off like sirens with lies. Constant lies. If you feel you must watch MSM then be on high alert for their key words like, " ALL Americans Believe," or repeating a news story so many times people begin to believe them these are forms of brainwashing along with out shouting any dissent. When Bush was in office the MSM TOLD the American people, ALL The people are war weary." They repeated this line so many times that even the conservatives began to sing along. It is best to stay away from MSM hence dishing them up a cup of their own medicine. As soon as President Trump takes office be prepared to hear the media begin their attacks on him. They haven't even begun to fight yet. Be prepared to NEVER HEAR a nice word about him, it will all be negative. Ye be warned.