As I previously wrote. (See 1 below.)
And:
One of the most despicable government failures, bordering on treasonous behaviour by the agency's bureaucrats and a story that is being ignored and which I will have more to say about in later memos. (See 1a below.)
And:
Dick,
In my untutored view, this and your prior memo could be summarized in one sentence. Trump, perhaps alone, realized our government was getting better and better at doing things they shouldn’t be doing at all. Further, he is the first president since Reagan to do something substantive about it. His campaign to “make America great again” essentially paraphrases Reagan’s great line, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” Trump’s words and actions, for all their churlish boorishness, have attempted to stop doing what we shouldn’t be doing and begin again to do what we should be doing.
An entirely reasonable way to make America great again, in my view.
Ed
P.S. Perhaps another way to look at it is embodied in the old aphorism, “The best way to start to solve a problem is to get rid of all the sacred cows, most of which are bull.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++The best and most effective missile attack on Iran is through the baking system. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Epstein has a point but I doubt Trump would be such a daily focus if the mass media were more balanced towards him and quit ignoring their other responsibilities and thus not provide him opportunities, some legitimate, to twitter back in self defense. They know Trump is narcissistic and they purposely keep putting red flags in front to taunt him to twitter.
In the case of The New York Times' their "fake news" reports" form the basis of their survival so they are profit driven not fact driven and that strikes me as amoral.(See 3 below.)
http://dimwitpolitics.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump the pragmatist. (See 4 below.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now I want to turn to some personal comments about local matters.
I had to renew my driver's license and if there is one thing I hate worse than buying a car or going to the dentist it is dealing with government bureaucrats. So I got up this morning at 6:30 and made sure I would be early at the license bureau. To my surprise they opened at 7:30 instead of 8, as I thought , and several were ahead of me. I entered not knowing I was supposed to got to a woman standing in front of the door. So I went back, as I was told, and she told me what I had to do, walked me to the computer where I input material. She looked it over and gave me a card identifying when I would be called and 10 minutes later (I did not have time to finish The WSJ I brought with me) I went to a desk, had my picture taken, paid for the license and was given a temporary replacement. It took less than 30 minutes so I was even early for a haircut because the shop was still closed.
I got a ten year license at which expiration time I will be either 95 and still driving or dead. I can't wait to go back and have my license renewed!!! Kudos to Chatham County and to the employees of the Driver License Bureau who were courteous, knowledgeable , efficient and friendly!!!!!
The second experience was somewhat more personally touching. I take some courses at the Adult Learning Center and signed up for a lecture about Mills B Lane to be given by his nephew, a dear, exceedingly liberal and contentious dear friend. Howard Morrison has been in failing health for several years due to a combination of melanoma and a stroke. When I saw my dear friend of 12 or so years I was shocked because he was down to 175 or so pounds and was pitifully thin. We greeted each other because he knew I was coming and upon our return from baby sitting the grandchildren Lynn called his wife, Mary, to make a dinner date to celebrate his recovery and their anniversary.
He stood up and gave a rambling but fascinating review of his side of the family's history which is synonymous with Georgia. The Lane family are legendary force in Georgia and helped rebuild this state after the ravages of The Civil War.
My firm's headquarters, Courts & Co., was next to the headquarters of The Atlanta C&S Bank and when I was elected a partner, Mr. Courts introduced me to Mills B. Lane. (Howard worked there but we never met until I came to Savannah.)
Atlanta owes so much to this banking giant and I remember in the annual report there was always a line entitled hit, run and error account. These were loans Mills Lane believed were good for the city though might not be good for the bank and stockholders in terms of their ability to pay back but the borrowers were honest and needed a hand and Mills believed the loan was good for all.
My friend, Howard, never was able to finish his entire and fascinating story because he was physically tired and had approached his allotted time of an hour.
I am sure I will hear more when we have dinner.
Howard and I agree on the need for our progeny to be exposed to a solid education. He went to Choate and Yale. After that we depart ways on many views and solutions. Howard is somewhat of a dreamer but I love him dearly. He recently suggested we write a joint LTE to prove that lions and lambs can lay down in peace. I agreed that it was a good idea with the reservation that I be the lion. I sent him a rough outline and, naturally, he had a lot of comments that we will have to thrash through if we ever complete his idea. Howard is crafty, sneaky, exceptionally bright and loves to make you drop your train of thought by interjecting his ideas in the nicest and most mannerly of ways. I am on to hi m now but it took some time.
Howard is Savannah History and his beautiful and charming wife, Mary, have the stuff Bush Sr and his beloved Barbara are made of and I am better for their friendship as is Savannah and Georgia.
You cannot help but love them both because they are made of pure .honey
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are the pigeons starting to come home to roost? https://tiny.iavian.net/mk8j
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is what has become Obama's America. You have no rights but those who shake you down do and become victims. And you thought Jesse Jackson's shake down tactics were passe?
What the management of Starbucks apparently has not learned is you do not shut an entire company down over a shakedown that seems to have no racial connection. Furthermore, if the facts are as stated in this article if and when you do close and re-train you will spend millions of dollars of stockholder money for naught. https://www.dailywire.com/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is going on in America reminds me of the frog who is in a bucket of water while the heat is gradually rising. The frog is unaware of the fact that he will be boiled alive because it is all happening at a gradual pace.
Those who hate this country are on the march. University administrations have turned against those engaged in exercising their right to speak. Government bureaucrats are more in control of our government than the elected. The mass media has lost all respect because they no longer serve in the role of an objective, informed and courageous ombudsman. Our military is underfunded and law enforcement are attacked as threats to our freedoms and civil rights. Many states, cities counties have decided they do not have to enforce federal laws. Illegal immigrants have free run while legal citizens must yield to their demands, fund their welfare and tolerate the law breakers among their ranks. Our deficits mount in an uncontrolled manner because politicians know they can buy votes with tax payer funds. Finally, why are so many of our high officials kept in their jobs when they cannot remember anything they did when called to testify?
By now you either have gotten my drift are are hopelessly unconcerned. You decide.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Who Needs a Secretary of State?
Democrats are now trying to block even Trump’s security cabinet.
By The Editorial Board.
Senate Democrats have stalled nearly every Trump nominee in government, but their growing opposition to Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State suggests they don’t want the President to have even his top national security officials. Their new standard seems to be that any nominee who agrees with the elected President is disqualified.
“I don’t want a Secretary of State who is going to exacerbate the [sic] President Trump’s tendencies to oppose diplomacy,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine (D., Va.) told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. He cited Mr. Pompeo’s opposition to Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Tehran and his support for “regime change,” although moderator Margaret Brennan didn’t let him finish that thought.
Mr. Kaine may recall that Donald Trump campaigned and won while opposing the Iran nuclear deal, and if Mr. Kaine is still sore about the outcome he should have told his running mate to campaign in Wisconsin. As for regime change, that isn’t Mr. Trump’s policy as far as we can tell, though does Mr. Kaine think the world is better with a regime in Iran that spreads terror around the world?
California Democrat Dianne Feinstein attributes her come-lately opposition to Mr. Pompeo’s allegedly undiplomatic statements about “Muslims and the LGBT community.” She doesn't like that Mr. Pompeo supports traditional marriage. This has nothing to do with rallying allies to support a containment strategy for Iran, though it might relate to her Senate primary challenge from the left this year.
Defeating a Secretary of State nominee would be extraordinary. George W. Bush’s first nominee, Colin Powell, was confirmed by unanimous voice vote, and his second, Condoleezza Rice, by 85-13. Hillary Clinton received two no votes and John Kerry only three. Every Secretary of State nominee since 1925 has been reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee favorably.Sens. Feinstein and Kaine and 12 other Democrats voted to confirm Mr. Pompeo as CIA director—he was confirmed 66-32—perhaps because he’s so well qualified. Mr. Pompeo is a West Point and Harvard Law graduate who served three terms in Congress, and along with fellow Republican Tom Cotton unearthed the Obama Administration’s secret side deals with Tehran. He has invigorated the CIA clandestine service, tried to give Mr. Trump options on North Korea, and has gained the President’s trust. With Rex Tillerson out at State, Mr. Trump said Wednesday he had already dispatched Mr. Pompeo to conduct diplomacy with Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang.
Mr. Pompeo may not get that courtesy. Kentucky Republican Rand Paul opposes Mr. Pompeo because he’s still litigating the 2003 Iraq war, if his questions at last week’s confirmation hearing are an indication. Cory Booker of New Jersey asked Mr. Pompeo if he thought “gay sex is a perversion.” Mr. Booker is an all but declared Democratic candidate for President—don’t laugh.
All of this means that Mr. Pompeo may receive a rare unfavorable recommendation from the committee next week. His nomination can still get to the floor, but Republicans have only a 50-vote majority on foreign policy with Mr. Paul as a party of one.
What a message that would send to America’s enemies as President Trump prepares for his North Korea summit, decides on the fate of the Iran nuclear deal, and confronts a hostile Russia. Democrats say they don’t trust Mr. Trump, but in denying him senior advisers they make it more likely he will govern by himself. Mark it down as one more example that hatred for Mr. Trump has caused many of his opponents to abandon rational judgment.
1a) About That IRS Computer Crash
The Obama tax man blames you because his e-filing system failed.
By
Someone at the Internal Revenue Service seems to have kicked a plug out of the wall on Tuesday: The agency’s computer system tanked on, of all days, tax filing deadline day. Thus arrived an irresistible metaphor for government incompetence, albeit with the perennial calls for more funding.
Many taxpayers arrived at the IRS website on Tuesday prepared to sign away significant portions of their income. According to news stories, a message greeted them that the IRS website had a “planned outage” from April 17, 2018 to “December 31, 9999.” Should we check back in the morning or afternoon?
The agency said it “encountered system issues” and extended the filing deadline by a day, which is nice. But collecting revenue is the purpose of this bureaucracy. This debacle is like having an aircraft carrier that can’t move off the docks when a war starts.
But the agency hasn’t addressed some of its own manifold problems, and the House has held hearings detailing the dysfunction. One problem, surprise, has been updating information technology.On cue came the armada blaming budget cuts. Former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen lectured that he knew a system failure was coming without more money. It seems lost on Mr. Koskinen that this failure is an indictment of his leadership. The IRS budget has decreased by about 9% in nominal terms since 2010. But the IRS has $11 billion to play with in 2018, which is presumably enough to keep the computers working on the most important day of the year.
A Treasury Department Inspector General last fall told Congress: “The IRS’s reliance on legacy (i.e., older) systems, aged hardware, and outdated programming languages pose significant risks to the IRS’s ability to deliver its mission. Modernizing the IRS’s computer systems has been a persistent challenge for several decades and will likely remain a challenge for the foreseeable future.”
A Government Accountability Office report last year found 166 outstanding recommendations about IT security. Good thing these folks don’t have sensitive information . . .
These deficiencies are a matter of priorities, not funding. The cynical reality is that bureaucracies are shrewd and skimp on core services—taxpayer customer service lines—to extort more public dollars.
The House this week is moving bills that would try to “modernize” the agency, with some IT updates that now look prescient. Most of the trouble will fall to the next commissioner, a tax lawyer named Charles Rettig. Give the man a public service award if he can simply keep the website running on tax day.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Use Iran Sanctions to Stop Assad
Allied cooperation in Syria offers a way to overcome differences over the nuclear deal.
By Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg
Since the weekend military strike against chemical-weapons sites in Syria, the debate in Washington has centered on whether the strike went far enough. But policy makers should consider another question of equal importance: Is the U.S. prepared to cut off the financial lifelines that keep Bashar Assad in power?
The Islamic Republic of Iran spent roughly $15 billion last year to bolster its longtime strategic partner in Damascus. It bought arms for Mr. Assad’s military and financed the foreign Shiite militias, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah, that fight for the Syrian dictator. Iran’s annual contribution to Hezbollah alone stands at between $700 million and $800 million. Tehran has deployed its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to Syria and has lent money to Mr. Assad to finance imports such as petroleum. Iran extended a $1 billion line of credit in 2017, on top of the $5.6 billion it had already provided. This credit is provided through the Islamic Republic’s Export Development Bank, while all funds ultimately run through Iran’s central bank.
A Syria strategy that leaves these Iranian financial spigots open is doomed to fail. Why haven’t they been blocked? For fear of jeopardizing the 2015 nuclear accord, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which relieved sanctions on Iranian banks, regime assets and economic sectors. This policy paralysis needs to end, and this weekend’s military strike, conducted in close coordination with France and Britain, should lead to a trans-Atlantic understanding that allows true financial warfare against the Iran-Syria nexus to commence.
In 2011 the U.S. Senate voted 100-0 to slap sanctions on Iran’s central bank. It did so based on the bank’s role in financing illicit Iranian nuclear development, terrorism, missile proliferation, money laundering and sanctions circumvention. These and other Iran sanctions were never intended to curb nuclear behavior alone. If President Trump determines that an Iranian bank, company or sector is sponsoring nonnuclear malign activity—like the Revolutionary Guards’ and Hezbollah’s support for Mr. Assad’s crimes against humanity—he is well within his authority to bring back sanctions targeting the illicit activity. President Obama made clear in 2015 that imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic for “nonnuclear reasons” was permissible under the nuclear deal.
Europe should support these sanctions as part of a maximum pressure campaign targeting the Syrian regime and its supporters. That would begin by reimposing sanctions on Iranian banks that support Mr. Assad. Next, it would target all sponsors of the Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah. The supreme leader’s $200 billion conglomerate, foundations, energy exports and other key sectors of the Iranian economy—all should face sanctions.
Mr. Trump has asked for tough European action against Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guards. Both are deployed in Syria to ensure the survival of the Assad regime. While the U.S. designates both groups as terrorist organizations, the Europeans don’t. Europe should join the U.S. and take action against these terrorists regardless of the nuclear deal’s fate.
The U.S. and Europe have to agree on fixes to the nuclear deal by May 12, when Mr. Trump must decide whether to issue another four-month waiver suspending sanctions on Iran’s central bank. If they can’t agree on a fix, the U.S. can offer a face-saving gesture to win European support for a maximum pressure campaign targeting Mr. Assad. Rather than labeling the reimposition of sanctions on Iran’s central bank a way of nixing the nuclear deal, the president should announce the move as a response to Iranian behavior in Syria.
This approach could provide either more time for negotiations with Europe and Iran to fix the nuclear deal—but with increased U.S. leverage—or more time for the administration to plan for a responsible exit from the deal. Instead of making Iran look like a diplomacy-loving victim of American unilateralism, Tehran would have to defend its odious Syria policy. And it would further intensify the pressure on an Iranian regime facing daily protests by people chanting, “Leave Syria, think of us.”
If the Europeans want to save the nuclear deal and punish Mr. Assad’s enablers, they need to move on sanctions. A true fix cannot impede the West’s ability to curb Iran’s nonnuclear illicit activities, even if the targets of such financial warfare were initially granted sanctions relief under the accord. Nor can a fix be complete without maximum pressure on Tehran’s terrorist proxies.
Mr. Assad’s latest chemical-weapons attack handed Mr. Trump an opportunity to take advantage of rare trans-Atlantic and bipartisan support to target Iran’s activities in Syria. The president should exploit it to the maximum.
Mr. Dubowitz is chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Mr. Goldberg is a senior adviser.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)We’ve All Got Too Much Trump on Our Minds
The president is easily the hottest show in town. But does he have to be the only show in town?
By Joseph Epstein
The life and career of Donald Trump is easily the hottest show in town. The problem is that it is beginning to seem the only show in town. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, the two George Bushes, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama attracted nothing like the same intensity of attention over their full terms as has Mr. Trump in what is only the beginning of his. As never before in recent history, politics has come to dominate daily life. People I know report that they get in three or four political discussions a day, all of them centering on Mr. Trump.
If our president suffers from a Copernican Complex, the belief that the sun and all the planets revolve around him, surely the past 18 months have resolved it for him by making it seem true. Owing to his erratic, splenetic, chaotic style of governing, these same months have left the rest of us with what might be called Trump Syndrome, whose chief symptom is a diminishing interest in anything outside politics.
The Trump presidency having swept the boards of national attention, one would expect political magazines, or what the New Yorker writer Wolcott Gibbs once referred to as “salvationist” publications (because, whether liberal or conservative, through politics they are out to save their readers’ souls), to salivate over the endless copy Mr. Trump has dropped in their laps.
But what were once called general-interest magazines offer no relief. Harper’s has devoted more of its space to politics, and the cover of the current issue is devoted to “ Mike Pence’s Persecution Complex.” The Atlantic features a long article on Donald Trump and the Evangelicals. On a recent cover of the New Yorker, a magazine once loftily above the petty details of everyday politics, our president appears—behind a lectern, thank goodness—buck naked. The American Scholar, which during the 23 years I edited it never descended to mention a current-day president, is now in its content quite as Trumped-up as these other magazines.
Why have the editors of these periodicals gone ga-ga over Donald Trump? Ian Buruma, of the New York Review of Books, long a left-wing salvationist magazine, in a recent interview in the Guardian, an English newspaper, noted that “we are living in the age of Trump, and that does give publications that believe in tolerance and democracy a responsibility. How you deal with it is, of course, a big question. Just ridiculing his vulgarity isn’t going to help anybody. But you do have to keep at it.”
Doubtless other editors, and many ordinary citizens, feel that they too have to keep at it. Very little fresh or interesting gets written or said on the Trumpian subject. Yet coming out strongly for or against Mr. Trump establishes their sense of their own virtue, and thereby makes all who do so feel good about themselves, however much they may wish to appear worried about the state of their country. And so the beat goes on—thump, thump, thump; Trump, Trump, Trump—with everyone continually pounding away at the subject of our Donald.
In his “Notebooks,” the English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott wrote: “Politics is a suitable subject for conversation—perhaps that is all it is suitable for.” Later he added that “politics is an uninteresting form of activity to anyone who has no desire to rule others.” What Oakeshott would make of the current Trumpian delirium would be well worth knowing.
I suspect Oakeshott would paraphrase a certain Danish prince and strongly suggest that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in yet another conversation about Donald Trump. There are spring and another baseball season, driverless cars, the decline of the contemporary university, one’s family, the perennial nuttiness of human nature . . . and more, so much more.
During World War II, there was instituted something called Meatless Tuesday, this in aid of making more meat available for the troops. I wonder if it wouldn’t make sense for each of us voluntarily to institute a Trumpless Thursday, on which no discussion of any kind or in any media about Donald Trump would be allowed, this in aid of remembering how pleasant the world can be without the intrusion, incessant and clangorous, of politics.
Mr. Epstein is author of the forthcoming “The Ideal of Culture and Other Essays” (Axios Press) and “Charm: The Elusive Enchantment” (Taylor Trade), both to be published in 2018.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)A Take on Donald Trump
"We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation varied from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.
At one point, reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.
I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn't see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.
Viewing problems from a Liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.
Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.
Immigration isn't a Republican problem, it isn't a Liberal problem, it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.
The impending collapse of the economy wasn't a Liberal or Conservative problem, it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.
Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.
Trump uniquely understands that China's manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it.
Here again, successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work, you don't continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.
As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl's Hamburgers.
I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.
You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason some people do not like him is because:
(1) he is antithetical to the "good old boy" method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians;
(2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a president speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who he owes vis-a-vis donations;
(3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology;
(4) he says what he is thinking, is unapologetic for his outspoken thoughts, speaks very straightforward using everyday language that can be understood by all (and is offensive to some who dislike him anyway) making him a great communicator, for the most part, does what he says he will do and;
(5) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.
Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to "out crazy" one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don't give tens of millions without expecting something in return
We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?
I submit that a pragmatist is just what America needs right now. People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common among those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solved a problem, because it's better to still have an "issue(s) to be solved," so re-elect me to solve it, (which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success).
Donald Trump put his total financial empire at risk in running for president and certainly did not need or possibly even want the job; that says it all. He wants success for the U.S. and her citizens because he loves his country!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)A Take on Donald Trump
by: Mychal Massie
Some of you are disappointed by my general tolerance of Trump the unconventional, nonconforming, "immoral", spoiled rich kid in the White House. After reading this, maybe you'll have more understanding of how I can tolerate him.
Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He's a "Pragmatist." (Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn't let emotion distract him or her.)
Some of you are disappointed by my general tolerance of Trump the unconventional, nonconforming, "immoral", spoiled rich kid in the White House. After reading this, maybe you'll have more understanding of how I can tolerate him.
Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He's a "Pragmatist." (Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn't let emotion distract him or her.)
"We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation varied from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.
At one point, reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.
I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn't see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.
Viewing problems from a Liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.
Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.
Immigration isn't a Republican problem, it isn't a Liberal problem, it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.
The impending collapse of the economy wasn't a Liberal or Conservative problem, it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.
Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.
Trump uniquely understands that China's manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it.
Here again, successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work, you don't continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.
As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl's Hamburgers.
I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.
You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason some people do not like him is because:
(1) he is antithetical to the "good old boy" method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians;
(2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a president speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who he owes vis-a-vis donations;
(3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology;
(4) he says what he is thinking, is unapologetic for his outspoken thoughts, speaks very straightforward using everyday language that can be understood by all (and is offensive to some who dislike him anyway) making him a great communicator, for the most part, does what he says he will do and;
(5) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.
Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to "out crazy" one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don't give tens of millions without expecting something in return
We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?
I submit that a pragmatist is just what America needs right now. People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common among those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solved a problem, because it's better to still have an "issue(s) to be solved," so re-elect me to solve it, (which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success).
Donald Trump put his total financial empire at risk in running for president and certainly did not need or possibly even want the job; that says it all. He wants success for the U.S. and her citizens because he loves his country!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
