RUTHFULLY YOURS

Following the conventional wisdom on the Trump presidency is a little like taking a mind-altering drug while riding a roller-coaster. You know that you are being hurled up and down and around in a succession of dizzying revolutions, but somehow it doesn’t seem quite as normal an experience as that.

In the twelve or so hours after the State of the Union, the air was thick with the sound of second thoughts on the Trump presidency: The president had been “presidential.” He had spoken well, reading the teleprompter accurately, and not deviating into self-justifying asides. He had denounced bigotry and anti-Semitism. He had followed Nixon to China on immigration reform, hallelujah. His familiar themes of patriotic unity and rebuilding America were expressed in lighter and more optimistic language than in his “dark” and “divisive” Inaugural, with its grim talk of “carnage.” His tribute to the widow of the slain Navy SEAL had been an inspiring moment in an inspiring speech. And so on, and so on, and so on.

I don’t think anyone described the president as “the New Trump,” but it came pretty close to that. And this favorable impression was then reinforced by reports of polls that showed that the voters, maybe having listened to the pundits, liked it, too. One such poll showed that almost four out of every five Americans approved of the speech to varying degrees.

Politically speaking, that’s important. If the president is thought to be an impressive figure within the mainstream of presidents, so to speak, and to enjoy wide popular support, he will be in a better position to push through his political agenda.

Probably for that reason, pundits started having second thoughts about the second thoughts at around lunch time on the same day. They weren’t always the same pundits, of course. Some were responding critically to the first round of pundits who had had approving second thoughts; others were putting a more skeptical gloss on their own earlier-in-the-day approval. But the general effect was to explain that Trump’s speech had not been nearly as successful as the initial set of reactions had suggested. Not by any means. In fact, parts of it, like the curate’s egg, had been downright disgusting,

So what had produced this illusion of success? The answer that bubbled up from the collective subconscious of the punditocracy was that Trump had seemed to give a good speech because he was being compared favorably, indeed indulgently, to Trump who, as everyone knows, is impulsive, scatter-brained, given to plucking figures from the air or his last night’s television viewing, vulgar, credulous, hostile to every form of self-discipline, including logic, and wholly incapable of giving a good speech or a polished performance.

Establishment furor over the six-week-old Trump administration is growing.

Outraged New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman recently compared Trump’s victory to disasters in American history that killed and wounded thousands such as the Pearl Harbor surprise bombing and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The New Republic — based on no evidence — theorized that Trump could well be mentally unstable due to the effects of neurosyphilis.

Talk of removing the new president through impeachment, or opposing everything he does (the progressive “Resistance”), is commonplace. Some op-ed writers and pundits abroad have openly hoped for his violent death.

Trump is in a virtual war with the mainstream global media, the entrenched so-called deep state, the Democratic-party establishment, progressive activists, and many in the Republican party as well.

The sometimes undisciplined and loud Trump is certainly not a member of the familiar ruling cadre, which dismisses him as a crude and know-nothing upstart who should never have been elected president. (Had Hillary Clinton won in 2016 and served a full term, a member of either the Bush or Clinton families would have been president for 24 years of a 32-year span.)

But who, exactly, makes up these disgruntled elite classes?

In California, state planners and legislators focused on things such as outlawing plastic grocery bags while California’s roads and dams over three decades sank into decrepitude. The result is crumbling infrastructure that now threatens the very safety of the public. Powerful Californians with impressive degrees also came up with the loony and neo-Confederate idea of nullifying federal immigration law through sanctuary cities.

Sophisticated Washington, D.C., economists produced budgets for the last eight years that saw U.S. debt explode from $10 trillion to nearly $19 trillion, as economic growth sank to its lowest level since the Hoover administration.

For a year, most expert pundits and pollsters smugly assured the public of a certain Hillary Clinton victory — until the hour before she was overwhelmed in the Electoral College.

Rhodes Scholar and former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice lied repeatedly on national television about the Benghazi debacle.

From the fabulist former NBC anchorman Brian Williams to the disreputable reporters who turned up in WikiLeaks, there are lots of well-educated, influential, and self-assured elites who apparently cannot tell the truth or in dishonest fashion mix journalism and politics.

They’ve taken down General Michael Flynn. The former Trump national-security adviser resigned under fire when a false narrative — his purported collusion with election-hacking Russians — was inflamed by criminal intelligence leaks, exacerbated by his poor judgment (or, at the least, poor execution of his duty to brief senior administration officials). Now, the swamp is after its next scalp, Sebastian Gorka, a White House counterterrorism adviser. If the White House is wise, they won’t get it.

Seb is a friend of mine. He is also an accomplished scholar of jihadist ideology and methodology. A series of transparently coordinated hit pieces against him has issued from the usual mainstream-media sources. They have been ably rebutted, among other places, here at National Review Online, in a column by Colin Dueck, and at the Washington Free Beacon, in reports by Bill Gertz and Adam Kredo. The notion that he is racist, “Islamophobic” (as opposed to anti-jihadist), or uninformed is absurd. I wish only to add a couple of observations to the mix.

First, Washington’s government-centric clerisy has forged its own counterterrorism industry over the years, consisting of former investigators and intel analysts, along with the academics who collaborate with them. Much of the work they have done is very solid. But some of it has been highly politicized — in the Bush years, when the powers that be took umbrage at any suggestion that Islamic culture and some mainstream currents of Islamic thought are inherently resistant to Western democracy; and in the Obama years, when any whisper of the nexus between classical, scripture-based Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims was a firing offense.

Gorka, an American citizen who grew up in London and holds a doctorate in political science from the Budapest University of Economic Sciences and Public Administration, is an outside-the-Beltway academic. His clear-eyed understanding of totalitarian ideology, as we shall see, is largely based on having experienced its wages. In short, he is a gate-crasher who does not share the industry’s presumptions. Worse, from the industry’s perspective, he is an extraordinarily effective speaker and writer, who connects well in the classroom, on the page, in the council hall, and at the television studio. He is anathema to an expert class that has spent years willingly putting itself in the service of such farce as “countering violent extremism,” “workplace violence,” “Arab Spring,” “religion of peace,” and other manifestations of willful blindness.

There is thus a target on his back. The Trump administration’s quick cashiering of General Flynn has convinced establishment Washington that it may not take much character assassination for the next guy to be thrown under the proverbial bus.

Second, Flynn was replaced as national-security adviser by General H. R. McMaster, a commendable warrior but one lodged firmly in the Bush/Obama see-no-Islam mindset, which is at odds with Trump’s oft-stated determination to recognize the connection between Islam and terrorism. General McMaster evidently objects to Trump’s naming of “radical Islamic terrorism” as the enemy. As I’ve contended, naming the enemy is necessary but not nearly sufficient; it is but a first step toward the real necessity of understanding the enemy. I have expressed my own reservations about the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” so I can hardly fault McMaster on that score. I can quarrel, though, with his reportedly Obama-esque position that the Islamic State is not Islamic. That is no more sensible than saying that the Islamic State is perfectly representative of Islam.

Nancy Pelosi says Republicans have accomplished nothing in 2017, and no doubt she wishes that were true. But the House has already voted to repeal 13 Obama-era regulations, and President Trump signed his third on Tuesday. Now the GOP should accelerate by fully utilizing the 1996 Congressional Review Act.

Republicans chose the damaging 13 rules based on a conventional reading of the CRA, which allows Congress to override regulations published within 60 legislative days, with simple (50-vote) majorities in both chambers. Yet the more scholars examine the law, which had only been used successfully once before this year, the clearer it is that the CRA gives Congress far more regulatory oversight than previously supposed.

Spearheading this review is the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Todd Gaziano—who helped write the 1996 act—and the Heritage Foundation’s Paul Larkin. Their legal findings, and a growing list of rules that might be subject to CRA, are on www.redtaperollback.com.

The pair argue, first, that the CRA defines “rule” broadly. The law relies on the definition in the Administrative Procedure Act, which includes any “agency statement” that is “designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.” This includes major and minor rules as well as “guidance”—letters that spell out an agency’s interpretation of a law.

This matters because President Obama’s regulators often ducked the notice and comment of formal rule-making by issuing “guidance” to act as de facto regulation. Examples include the guidance requiring transgender bathrooms in public schools, which the Trump Administration recently withdrew, or the 2011 guidance dictating how universities must handle sexual assault. The latter is ripe for CRA repeal.

The second discovery is the law’s definition of when the clock starts on Congress’s time to review rules. The CRA’s opening lines require any agency promulgating a rule to present a “report” containing the rule’s text and definition. The CRA explains that Congress’s review period begins either on the date the rule is published in the Federal Register, or the date Congress receives the report—whichever comes later.

Thus any rule for which any Administration (going back to 1996) failed to submit a report is fair game for CRA review and repeal. The Trump Administration can begin the clock merely by submitting a report to Congress.

Our own search suggests past Administrations were fairly diligent about presenting reports for major rules. But a 2014 study by the Administrative Conference of the United States found at least 43 “major” or “significant” rules that had never been reported to Congress.

The study estimated a further 1,000 smaller rules a year that agencies had failed to report. The study focused only on formal rules—not “guidance” that also requires a report to Congress under the CRA. Redtaperollback.com is offering tools so citizens can examine whether past rules have reports.

That scene you saw at the moment President Trump ended his speech to a joint session of Congress was the Democrats abandoning the ship of state.

Like the progressive street demonstrations endured by the country the past four weeks, we may assume Congress’s Democratic delegation organized their post-speech bolt to the exits via the famous social-media hashtag #TheResistance.

During the speech’s most extraordinary moment, the tribute to Carryn Owens, wife of slain SEAL Ryan Owens, one notable Democrat who refused to stand was Rep. Keith Ellison, who just lost a close race for Democratic National Committee chairman to Obama Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, also a man of the left.

You’d have thought that at the two-thirds point, when Mr. Trump hadn’t self-destructed as expected, when instead he was looking less like Alec Baldwin and more like President Trump, that Chuck Schumer might have pulled out his smartphone to tweet the troops, “Walkout maybe not a good idea.” Not this crew. En masse, they went over the side, just as they’ve refused to attend hearings for cabinet nominees and voted as a bloc against virtually all of them.

Donald Trump extended an olive branch on key legislative issues, and the Democrats gave him the you-know-what. In fact, the party might consider making you-know-what its new logo because Mr. Trump has stolen their mascot, the Democratic donkey.

The donkey was the creation of Democrat Andrew Jackson, whose portrait hangs now in Republican Donald Trump’s Oval Office. Jackson’s opponents called him a jackass, which he transformed into a badge of honor by putting the jackass on his campaign posters.

Jackson served two terms. Eight years is going to be a long slog for Democrats if indeed they plan to conduct the nation’s business with the Trump White House from various street corners.

There is one other relevant image from the moments after the speech ended: Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin standing—alone—to shake Mr. Trump’s hand. CONTINUE AT SITE

A former Black Lives Matter activist claims his comrades planned to burn down the Minnesota state capitol in Saint Paul and the governor’s mansion if the police officer who fatally shot a black man during a traffic stop had not been prosecuted.

Trey Turner, who describes himself as half black and half white, said in a YouTube video dated Feb. 27 that BLM activists planned to go on a violent rampage if Saint Paul area police officer Jeronimo Yanez had not been charged in connection with the high-profile shooting July 6, 2016 of the late Philando Castile, which they claim was racially motivated.

The violence and advocacy of violence against white people by Black Lives Matter is well-documented.

In recent weeks, Yusra Khogali of the Toronto, Canada branch of BLM, said white people were “recessive genetic defects” and contemplated how whites could be “wiped out.” In Seattle a BLM supporter issued a profanity-rich call “to start killing people” including President Trump. The speaker also ranted against “white supremacy,” “capitalism,” “patriarchy,” and “anti-blackness,” dropping the F-bomb 55 times in the tirade.

Last July, Micah X. Johnson, a sniper sympathetic to the movement’s goals shot and killed five Dallas area cops before being killed. Johnson’s shooting spree took place the day after Castile died and some say it may have served as a catalyst for the mass murder which happened during a Black Lives Matter march.

FrontPage readers need to be cautioned that so far Turner’s statement is uncorroborated. It is unclear if authorities are even investigating Turner’s story. A telephone call and emails seeking comment from the U.S. Department of Justice had not been returned at time of writing.

Castile, 32 at the time of his death, was an elementary school cafeteria employee with a long list of traffic infractions but no criminal convictions. The sheriff of Hennepin County, Minn., issued a concealed-carry permit for a pistol to Castile in 2015. He had a handgun in his vehicle at the time of the traffic stop.

Big.

The Empire State Building was built in a year. During WW2, we built almost 100,000 aircraft in a year. The 1,700 mile Alaska Highway was completed in a year. Compare that to Obama’s California high speed train to nowhere which got its start in his stimulus plan in 2009 and whose deadline he had to extend to 2022. In the 19th century, railroad crews laid 10 miles of track in one day between sunrise and sunset.

It took a decade and billions of dollars for New York City to build a subway that runs 20 blocks.

But in a bold and courageous address, President Trump laid out a tremendous vision that runs from transforming our education and health care systems and rebuilding our military, to curing diseases, unleashing technological wonders and even, “American footprints on distant worlds.”

It is a vision of revitalized industries, rebuilt cities and thriving communities. It is the America that once was and might have been if history had taken a different turn on a cold fall night in Chicago.

And it can be ours again.

The President called for unleashing the potential of inner cities trapped under Democrat rule with school choice and gave a voice to the victims of illegal alien crime. He envisioned the rebuilding of our infrastructure and the end of ObamaCare. He defied the warnings of the appeasement lobby and spoke out firmly against Islamic terror. And he laid out a vision for making the nation great again.

“Think of the marvels we can achieve if we simply set free the dreams of our people,” the President urged.

We haven’t thought big or built big. Money pours through our hands and disappears into the pockets of a corrupt establishment. The dollar tip of a waitress in a small town in Ohio goes into the Georgetown mansion of an environmental consultant. The tax hike that wipes out the annual profits of a small business in Michigan disappears into a three billion dollar accounting error in Washington D.C.

And even this thievery, the theft of the billions and trillions that vanished under Obama leaving us deeply indebted to China and Japan, is small, mean and petty. The Clintons had rented out the Lincoln Bedroom when they were in the White House. Then they ran for office by charging half the dictators and lobbyists of the world rent on the Lincoln Bedroom on the assumption that Hillary would get the keys.

There was no vision to the miserable thievery. Just vultures picking over the bones of a great nation.

But in the election, tens of millions of Americans drove off the vultures circling over the Washington Monument. The Clintons roam the Chappaqua woods while a national vision returns to D.C.

A vision that is uniquely American in its optimism and its confidence.

“A new chapter of American Greatness is now beginning,” President Trump declared. “A new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp.”

“What we are witnessing today is the Renewal of the American Spirit.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/28/democrats-withhold-applause-support-trump-speech-c/

Forget about an end to partisanship anytime soon.

It never got as bad as the GOP’s “you lie” disruption that struck President Obama, but Democrats were intent on showing as little approval of President Trump as possible during his address to Congress Tuesday, at one point even staging a round of fake coughs to protest his claims of making strides to “drain the swamp” in Washington, and hissing at his recognition of victims of illegal immigrant crimes.

The freeze-out was nearly total. Democrats who had lined the aisles in recent years to be seen hugging President George W. Bush and President Obama as they strode to the rostrum hung back Tuesday night, leaving the president to shake hands almost exclusively with Republicans.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/trumps_state_of_the_union_viewed_with_antitrump_democrats.html

President Donald Trump hit a home run while addressing Congress yesterday. He delivered a well-crafted policy statement that stayed true to his campaign. He will alter his immigration plans to allow the “Dreamers” some leeway for future American residency. He might even consider a plan that allows illegal residents with clean records possible employment status, without any citizenship. Undoubtedly, Democratic leaders will reject this as they seek additional votes. But Trump has shown how the “art of the deal” begins with an opening gambit. All in all. he gave a speech that reiterated his campaign promises.

To the Democrats that I together with watched the speech, this was a totally different person. They could not recognize the lack of “hate” that they felt during the campaign. I suspect that they rarely listened to an uninterrupted hour-long speech from Trump before. At first, the anger was palpable, but with time, the speech overwhelmed them. I almost felt sorry for them. They, like the Democratic politicians in Congress, had to sit and listen to this speech and wonder how to respond. In the end, they hoped that his rhetoric would come to fruition.

This is amazing progress. Yes, they still hate Trump. But, if his speech is received by the nation positively, then there is hope for our nation.

The review on CNN was almost shocking. They could not find much to question. On Fox, the jubilation was significant. They all recognized that Trump has a comprehensive vision for our nation. He sees economic prosperity as allowing many choices for our people. He sees neighborhood safety as essential for our youth and future. He wants a unified goal of enriching all Americans with education and a skill set that provides adequate incomes for the future. Trump wants a strong and dominant military that prevents wars and wins those it fights. He wants our veterans protected and remembered.

Trump seeks an efficient government with reduced interference in our daily lives. He began the process of reducing regulatory control. He has argued for federalism and the return of powers our founders gave to the states. It appears that he also endorsed the Paul Ryan approach to reforming Obamacare. With success, (and against the Democrats, who would love to establish a single payer system) businesses and individuals would find innovative insurance plans that will provide health care that meets the needs of consumers.

Some question top White House advisor Steve Bannon’s role, but it is clear that he helps frame the ideological statement for the president in concise terms, as he did at CPAC.

Today, the White House must begin the process of enacting the legislation that will be needed to change the national trajectory. If he restores faith in capitalism and reduced national interference in our daily activities, then his will be a successful administration. He needs the congressional help of leaders Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, and we can only hope that they will deliver.

Trump’s opening injected a sense of unity and concern for those besieged by bigotry and hatred. He reminded us that we soon will celebrate our 250th anniversary. He has promised a better future for all our citizens. His success will be our success. Godspeed!