RUTHFULLY YOURS

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

Tuesday’s State of the Union address was without a doubt the best speech President Donald Trump has ever given, perhaps the best speech to a joint session of Congress since the great Ronald Reagan. But who could watch it and not be embarrassed by our infantile, bitter Left?

It was uplifting, optimistic, full of unifying words, and obvious to everyone. The pathetic exception was the Democrats in Congress. And those were the ones who did not boycott the event.

Like spoiled children, who had not gotten their way, they refused to applaud at the most obvious good-for-the-country lines. In fact, they were like a clique of mean girls in middle school who have decided to target one of their own.

They knew what they were hearing was monumental and good for the nation. But consumed in schoolyard jealousy, they got angry, not glad. In doing so, they showed no intention of working “with” President Trump. They are still scrambling for, and planning to sabotage him any way they can.

They proved one thing: They do not have America’s best interests at heart.

Is there any member of Congress more horrid than Nancy Pelosi? Her “we’re all wearing white and purple to protest Trump” nonsense means … what? She rolled her eyes, snickered to her seatmates like an ill-mannered child, and, of course, refused to stand and applaud, no matter how positive Trump’s words. The Democrats would not applaud or stand when he spoke of government ignorance of the criminal decimation of Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit. They would not applaud when he spoke of protecting American citizens by securing our borders. They would not applaud when he spoke about the companies who have promised to invest billions in U.S. manufacturing which will provide thousands of new jobs, or when he spoke about de-regulating business to unleash the economy. They do not want the economy unleashed; it would expose the dismal failure of the eight-year Obama administration.

The Democrats also refused to approve of his call to enforce our immigration laws. These leftists favor illegal immigrants over American citizens which is why they institute sanctuary cities. They do not distinguish between the criminals among them and those who commit no crimes. To the left, they are all the same. Yet to normal Americans, they are not.

Nor do our elected Democrats aim to protect and defend the citizens of the United States. They oppose the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” despite the graphic, barbaric actions of ISIS. They do not approve of “extreme vetting” to keep potential terrorists out of America. They would not even applaud Trump’s stated allegiance to and alliance with Israel! Who are these people? By two-thirds of the way through the speech, it began to seem as though they were enemies of America. Schumer stared into his lap. Steny Hoyer was stonefaced. None of them could applaud Scalia or his proposed replacement, Neil Gorsuch.

Perhaps the deplorable behavior of the Democrats throughout the speech was shame. There are 94 million people out of work, 43 million living in poverty and 43 million on food stamps. This is Obama’s legacy. He transformed American into something it was never meant to be. Iran is building its nukes. Cuba is still a communist nightmare. The Middle East is a seventh circle of hell. They should be embarrassed by these facts. Poverty has increased. Crime has increased. Maybe that is why they stare at their laps and do not clap. They all know Obamacare is collapsing but cannot cheer Trump’s plan to repeal and replace it with something that is affordable and actually provides health care.

The Democrats booed Trump’s new agency, VOICE, Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. God forbid the public should be informed about the tragedies inflicted on innocent Americans by criminal illegals.

Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty and justice – in an unbroken chain all the way down to the present.

And we’ve spent trillions of dollars overseas, while our infrastructure at home has so badly crumbled.

We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a 5-year ban on lobbying by Executive Branch Officials – and a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.

By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone.

As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS – a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women, and children of all faiths and beliefs.

We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim World, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.

But to accomplish our goals at home and abroad, we must restart the engine of the American economy – making it easier for companies to do business in the United States, and much harder for companies to leave.

My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone.

At the same time, we will provide massive tax relief for the middle class.

Tonight, I am also calling on this Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare, with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better Healthcare.

Mandating every American to buy government-approved health insurance was never the right solution for America.

The way to make health insurance available to everyone is to lower the cost of health insurance, and that is what we will do.

Obamacare is collapsing – and we must act decisively to protect all Americans. Action is not a choice – it is a necessity.

So I am calling on all Democrats and Republicans in Congress to work with us to save Americans from this imploding Obamacare disaster.

My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave, to invest inwomen’s health, and to promote clean air and clear water, and to rebuild our military and our infrastructure.

True love for our people requires us to find common ground, to advance the common good, and to cooperate on behalf of every American child who deserves a brighter future.

Today is Rare Disease Day, and joining us in the gallery is a Rare Disease Survivor, Megan Crowley. Megan was diagnosed with Pompe Disease, a rare and serious illness when she was 15 months old. She was not expected to live past 5.

On receiving this news, Megan’s dad, John, fought with everything he had to save the life of his precious child. He founded a company to look for a cure, and helped develop the drug that saved Megan’s life. Today she is 20 years old—and a sophomore at Notre Dame. Megan’s story is about the unbounded power of a father’s love for a daughter.

Finally, to keep America sSafe we must provide the men and women of the United States Military with the tools they need to prevent war and – if they must – TO FIGHT AND TO WIN.

I am sending Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the defense sequester, and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.

My budget will also increase funding for our veterans. Our Veterans have delivered for this nation – and now we must deliver for them.

The challenges we face as a nation are great.

But our people are even greater.

And none are greater or braver than those who fight for America in uniform.

But we know that America is better off, when there is less conflict — not more.

We must learn from the mistakes of the past – we have seen the war and destruction that have raged across our world.

The only long-term solution for these humanitarian disasters is to create the conditions where displaced persons can safely return home and begin the long process of rebuilding.

America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align.

Think of the marvels we can achieve if we simply set free the dreams of our people.

Cures to illnesses that have always plagued us are not too much to hope.

American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream.

Millions lifted from welfare to work is not too much to expect.

And streets where mothers are safe from fear—schools where children learn in peace—and jobs where Americans prosper and grow—are not too much to ask.

When we have all of this, we will have made America greater than ever before.

The time for small thinking is over.

The time for trivial fights is behind us.

We just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts.

The bravery to express the hopes that stir our souls.

And the confidence to turn those hopes and dreams to action.

From now on, America will be empowered by our aspirations – not burdened by our fears.

Donald Trump’s challenge Tuesday night was to look like he was up to the Presidency after a rocky start and set a clear direction for Congress. He succeeded more on the former than the latter, and the test now will be whether he can corral a fractious Congress to deliver in particular on tax reform and health care.

As a presidential rookie, Mr. Trump showed he could deliver a speech on this kind of stage in a calm and measured way. We haven’t seen enough of that in his first five weeks, and in that sense on Tuesday he rose to the occasion in democracy’s center ring. He was less tendentious than in his inaugural, and he began and ended with notes of unity and inclusiveness that have been too few in his early days.

Mr. Trump’s tone was also less combative than in his press conferences or TV appearances, and he didn’t sound like he was delivering a moral lecture as President Obama so often did. His blunt, plain language has been part of his political appeal, and for the most part he also avoided the defensiveness and self-focus that are unbecoming in the world’s most powerful political leader.

Even better was a tone of relative optimism. We say relative because his previous major speeches, including the inaugural, have included a parade of American horribles. On Tuesday he offered more than a few downbeats, including an overwrought picture of crime and a country besieged by foreign scoundrels. But he also pointed to better days and noted that Americans have always overcome their troubles.

The speech was less helpful in laying down clear markers for Congress on his signature reforms. The biggest miss was on taxes, where he barely developed his case for reform beyond what he has said in the campaign. He made only a tepid argument for the supply-side benefits of tax reform and instead cast corporate tax cuts mainly as a way to “create a level playing field for American companies and workers.”

This generality may reflect the indecision within his own economic team about how to proceed on tax reform. But with Republicans on Capitol Hill all over the place on taxes and spending, Mr. Trump missed an opportunity to make a better case and to set a firm timetable for action that can’t afford to go beyond 2017.

Also striking are the President’s contradictions on the wellsprings of economic growth. He understands that tax cuts and deregulation are essential to unleashing investment at home, but his capitalist instincts stop at the border. His invocation of the hoary old Lincoln quote about the virtues of “protective policy” couldn’t be less appropriate for the modern U.S. economy that needs global markets and world-class talent to succeed.

This is the “economic nationalism” promoted by his chief strategist Steve Bannon, and it is intended to show voters that Mr. Trump is on their side. But if it is ever put into practice it will undermine the rest of his growth agenda.

The President was better on health care, where he offered a set of sound principles. These included more competition and individual choice: “it must be the plan they want, not the plan forced on them by the government.”

Many years ago, when I was a brash young conservative lawyer working in a big law firm, I said something that could have ended my career (and almost certainly would have today). It was March Madness, and I was running one of the firm’s two bracket pools. As a basketball snob, I disliked the traditional pool because it was too dependent on sheer, dumb luck. As I recall, lawyers’ ten-year-old kids had won the previous two years, and I wanted a pool for serious fans only.

So, I created what I called the “conservative bracket,” a pool that put a premium on picking upsets. In a firm-wide e-mail, I said you could join the traditional, “liberal” bracket — where merit was irrelevant to outcome and even the most ignorant fan could win a trophy — or you could join the firm’s Republicans and test yourself against the best.

That wasn’t the offensive part. Just wait.

Once the tournament got rolling, I intended to start each Monday with a fun and highly politicized summary of the weekend’s results. The year was 1995, and the mighty Arizona Wildcats were upset by Miami of Ohio in the first round — a result I predicted. So, in the gleeful opening paragraph of my Monday morning firm-wide e-mail (sent to every lawyer, paralegal, and secretary), I explained at some length that Arizona lost because it played “like a bunch of girls.”

Okay, that was the offensive part.

The chairman of the firm’s management committee was a liberal feminist, and the firm’s female partners were by and large quite feminist. I was a lowly first-year associate. My job was of no consequence, and I immediately heard through the grapevine that the partners were not pleased. I braced myself for the consequences.

The next morning, I came to work and saw that my office door was closed. When I opened the door, my office was empty and the walls were covered with posters of women’s college-basketball teams. I turned around and every woman in the firm was standing behind me, triumphant smirks on their faces. My secretary grabbed my hand and led me down the hall to the women’s restroom, where they’d put my desk and chair and taped “David’s Office” on the door.

They responded to my ham-handed attempt at humor with some humor of their own — humor with a point.

I wasn’t called in to human resources. I wasn’t “counseled.” I didn’t have to attend diversity training. And I certainly wasn’t fined. I kept rolling with my conservative bracket (I came in last), and I kept sending firm-wide e-mails.

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration is proposing deep cuts in U.S. diplomatic and foreign-aid funding while dramatically increasing defense expenditures, a bid to fundamentally shift the emphasis of U.S. foreign policy that has sparked fierce criticism from lawmakers and international-affairs experts.

The White House has proposed a spending cut of 37% to the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development budget said a person familiar with the budget deliberations. Those agencies now receive about $50.1 billion.

At the same time, President Donald Trump is developing a federal budget that officials said would add $54 billion to the base defense budget, funded by cuts elsewhere, including the State Department and its foreign-aid division. The addition would increase military spending to more than $600 billion.

Lawmakers opposed to the cuts say they will unavoidably devastate the State Department. People familiar with the deliberations said the Trump administration is examining the growth in spending by the State Department during the Obama administration, including through the addition of adding special envoys, they said, though that would not cover the proposed cuts.

One U.S. official said that the Trump administration also was eyeing U.S. development assistance to other countries as a significant source for the cuts.

Word of the proposed cuts met with swift objection from Republicans and Democrats, who said it would sharply curtail Washington’s ability to guide world events.

“That is definitely dead on arrival,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on state and foreign operations, told reporters Tuesday. He said the proposed budget “destroys soft power” and puts diplomats at risk.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said he didn’t believe that a 37% cut would make it through Congress. “The diplomatic portion of the federal budget is very important and you get results a lot cheaper frequently,” than through military spending, he said.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.), the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said cutting the State Department budget by more than a third would “have serious and detrimental effects on our national-security posture.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-navy-choice-1488317240

President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of the Navy, investor Philip Bilden, withdrew Sunday over difficulties separating himself from his business interests. This follows the withdrawal of Army nominee Vincent Viola, but the Navy job carries particular significance because the new Administration has promised a major naval buildup.

The last great U.S. Navy Secretary was John Lehman, who used a background in finance and a natural talent for bureaucratic warfare to enact Ronald Reagan’s vision of a 600-ship Navy and help drive the Soviet Union to exhaustion. Today, as the Navy and its industry contractors try to halt a string of acquisitions snafus involving aircraft carriers, surface combatants and fighter aircraft, a veteran businessman such as former Ford CEO Alan Mulally would be a strong choice.

The more obvious pick is former Congressman Randy Forbes. As chair of the House Armed Services subcommittees on readiness and seapower from 2011 through last year, he warned that the Navy is undersized and ill-equipped to address security challenges such as China’s emergence as a rival in the Pacific. Mr. Forbes helped conceive the goal of a 350-ship Navy embraced by Mr. Trump—today’s fleet is 273 deployable ships—and last year he led his House committee in passing a $20.6 billion shipbuilding budget, the largest since the Reagan-Lehman era.

Our sources say Mr. Forbes has backers at the White House, but Pentagon chief Jim Mattis may prefer a nonpolitician. Mr. Mattis shouldn’t hire anyone who doesn’t have his confidence, but many former politicians have served ably as service secretaries. Mr. Forbes has a record of subordinating political considerations to strategic ones, as when he backed the deployment of more U.S. Navy assets to Asia that otherwise could have been based in his home state of Virginia.

Reversing the U.S. Navy’s decline is an urgent strategic priority. A smart service secretary who can navigate the Pentagon bureaucracy and Congressional opponents will be an asset to Mr. Trump, and the country, in pursuing the 350-ship goal. CONTINUE AT SITE