Posts

Trump Inauguration Protesters Dishonor Long-Held Principle

/0 Comments/in , /by

More than any other political act, the orderly transfer of power from one administration to another at a presidential inauguration demonstrates convincingly that we are a nation of laws and not of men.

Even with the closest of outcomes and the losing side’s understandable disappointment — and even anger — victor and vanquished normally pledge to work together for the common good.

Unfortunately, a coalition of left-wing radicals has now pledged to do all that it can to disrupt Donald Trump’s inauguration, including blocking streets and perhaps bridges, preventing people from assembling along the parade route, spreading false “news” about the ceremony’s participants and their remarks, and pledging a “permanent opposition” to the Trump presidency.

One newspaper referred to the left’s “post-election frenzy of fundraising, war rooms, protests and social media hysteria.”

This radical left has ignored the example set by past presidential losers such as former Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who after suffering defeat demonstrated their respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by a little more than half a million votes (out of 101.4 million cast) but won the electoral vote by the slimmest of margins — 271 to 266, one vote more than the 270 needed.

Gore could have refused to accept the Supreme Court’s decision putting a stop to ballot counting in Florida, but instead, he said that “for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”

Gore quoted Stephen Douglas’ comments to Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency: “Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.” With his concession remarks, Gore provided an example of high statesmanship rather than low partisanship.

A little more than two months ago, Trump lost the popular vote to Clinton by nearly 3 million votes out of 129 million cast, but won the electoral vote decisively by 306 to 232 votes.

Many Clinton supporters remain in deep denial, lending their support to the disaffected and the disgruntled who have promised to protest at the inauguration of Trump.

To her credit, Clinton has not encouraged the protests, but has rather stood by what she said at her concession speech on election night: “I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans.”

Endeavoring to put politics behind her, Clinton said that “we owe [Trump] an open mind and a chance to lead” and acknowledged the importance of “the peaceful transfer of power.”

We do not know what Trump, ever unpredictable, will say in his speech after he has taken the oath of office to become our 45th president. But we have reason to believe that his inaugural address will be, at least in part, Reaganesque — optimistic and confident.

Speaking of Ronald Reagan, I think (as I wrote in National Affairs) that 2017 resembles 1981 in several significant ways.

Republicans have accumulated a vast backlog of conservative ideas over the past eight years that were blocked by President Barack Obama and are now available to Trump.

Similarly, The Heritage Foundation’s 1980 Mandate for Leadership contained a mountain of conservative policy reforms going back decades that helped Reagan move the federal government in a conservative direction.

Even so, Heritage has now offered the Trump administration a similarly comprehensive blueprint for conservative policies in every federal department and agency.

These include repeal of Obamacare and the creation of a free-market health care program; the repeal of Dodd-Frank and the shutting down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; restoration of the work requirements for federal welfare; a flat tax rate on personal income; a commitment to traditional marriage; and the strengthening of our armed forces so that they are second to none.

The 2016 election returns have given conservatives a golden opportunity. The conservative agenda has proven solutions to many of the problems that led so many Americans — more than 61 million — to vote for the change that Trump promised.

It is now up to conservatives to convince policymakers from the White House to the statehouses to pursue the right path, to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and those we love. (For more from the author of “Trump Inauguration Protesters Dishonor Long-Held Principle” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Keeping 50 Obama Administration Officials

/0 Comments/in , /by

President-elect Donald Trump has asked roughly 50 senior Obama administration officials to remain in their roles in order to “ensure the continuity of government,” spokesman Sean Spicer said Thursday.

The decision comes as Trump is reportedly struggling to fill important posts in his new administration.

Among the Obama holdovers are key national security officials, including Brett McGurk, special envoy to the global coalition fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

The move is somewhat surprising, given Trump’s repeated criticism of Obama’s effort to combat the terrorist group. He called the president “the founder of ISIS” during a campaign event last April.

McGurk, however, does have bipartisan credentials. He served as an adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan under President George W. Bush. (Read more from “Trump Keeping 50 Obama Administration Officials” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Betsy DeVos Is Scarier Than the KKK, Says DC Teachers Union Head

/0 Comments/in , /by

Speaking at an event organized to oppose President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda in Washington, D.C. Thursday, American Federation of Teachers President Elizabeth “Liz” Davis said that Betsy DeVos, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education, is more frightening than the Ku Klux Klan.

“Of course, you know that there are some scarier things that are coming up … one of them is Betsy DeVos,” Davis said. “That frightens me more than the Klan, because Betsy DeVos is a multi-mega millionaire who has managed to buy her way to a position of influence that could actually change the face of what we know public education to be, and what we want it to be in this country.”

Watch:

Betsy DeVos is scarier than the KKK?

That is not jumping the shark. That is jumping a team of sharks with a flaming motorcycle, naked, irrationally screaming as the train-wreck of your pathetic liberal hysteria reaches the point where the American people cannot take your argument seriously because you think a kindly mid-western woman who supports school choice is worse than the Ku Klux Klan.

The real insult here is that as a representative for teachers, as an educator, Ms. Davis should know full well the KKK’s evil history and the atrocities committed by that wicked hate group. This is a woman responsible for teaching American children. For Davis to say that Betsy DeVos is scarier than the Ku Klux Klan, that is beyond slander.

She should be ashamed of herself. (For more from the author of “Betsy DeVos Is Scarier Than the KKK, Says DC Teachers Union Head” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Trump Poses a Bigger Threat to the Left Than Reagan, According to Newt Gingrich

/0 Comments/in , /by

President-elect Donald Trump poses a greater threat to the left than any other political leader in the last 100 years, Newt Gingrich proclaimed on the eve of Inauguration Day.

Speaking at The Heritage Foundation on Thursday, Gingrich predicted that the Trump administration will dismantle the Washington establishment, unlike anything America has ever seen.

“Trump is a direct moral threat to both the value system of the left—because he’s so politically incorrect—and to the power structure of the left,” the former House speaker said.

Trump will put an end to the liberal agenda pushed by the establishment since Franklin Roosevelt, Gingrich predicted.

“I believe it’s an opportunity to end the 84-year dominance of the left starting with Roosevelt in 1932,” Gingrich said. “[Ronald] Reagan didn’t end it, I didn’t end it. It has continued to be the dominant underlying force in American culture and government. We have a chance now to really do that.”

As the media becomes increasingly terrified and the left’s anticipation has risen, Gingrich said, it has become clear to me that there is no historical parallel to Trumpism.

Not even Reagan can serve as a model for a chief executive whose primary goal is to completely alter the current power structure, Gingrich noted.

“Reagan’s goal was to defeat the Soviet empire and, within the context of the traditional system, to accelerate economic growth and rebuild a belief in America and American history,” he said. “He didn’t spend a lot of time trying to take on the core value system of the left.”

Trump’s tackling of the left’s ideology is comparable to Margaret Thatcher’s annihilation of socialism in Great Britain during her years as prime minister.

Thatcher assailed socialism, “which is exactly what Trump should do,” Gingrich said. “Thatcher was a direct threat to both the value system and the power structure of the left in Great Britain.”

Gingrich suggested that while Trump may not be an ideological, traditional conservative, he has the ability to not only create jobs and stimulate the economy, but also to overpower the left’s agenda.

“He is not an ideological, traditional conservative, but he may be the most anti-left political leader of the last 100 years,” Gingrich said. “If they come together as a team and if they really focus on large-scale change, this will in fact be a historic opportunity.

Gingrich urged Trump voters to be both “noisily supported” of the administration and heavily critical of the elite news media.

“Every time the news media does something wrong, scream at them,” he said. “Just pound on them. Don’t pretend that we should pay attention to them in a positive way.”

Gingrich will pick up with part four of his six-part series on understanding Trump and Trumpism at Heritage on Monday, Jan. 23. The speech will take place at 11 a.m. EST. (For more from the author of “Why Trump Poses a Bigger Threat to the Left Than Reagan, According to Newt Gingrich” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Day One Executive Actions Could Include Immigration, Obamacare, ISIS, and Trade

/0 Comments/in , /by

President-elect Donald Trump plans to use “four or five” executive actions on Friday after being sworn into office, incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters.

“We’ve talked about that for a few months now—Obamacare, the fight against ISIS, he talked about immigration, key issues that have been important to him throughout the campaign that will continue to be important to him throughout this administration,” Spicer said Thursday at a press briefing.

This comes after Wednesday, when Spicer told reporters that Trump will have “in the area of four or five” executive actions during his first day in office.

During the Thursday press briefing, Spicer said Trump is committed to using executive actions beyond day one.

“I think the president-elect is still working through which [executive actions] he wants to deal with tomorrow versus Monday or Tuesday,” Spicer said.

When later asked about trade, Spicer said Trump will move on taking action on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“Part of what he announced in the executive order list, around Thanksgiving time, included actions on both TPP and NAFTA that will be done by executive order,” Spicer said. “So I think you will see those happen very shortly.”

During the campaign, Trump announced his first action to protect American workers will be to announce his plan to renegotiate NAFTA, a trade deal between the United States, Canada and Mexico, with the threat of withdrawal if necessary. He also intends to withdraw from the TPP, an 11-nation trade agreement negotiated by the Obama administration.

Ditching TPP would be largely symbolic because the agreement is essentially dead on arrival in Congress. But early executive actions by presidents are frequently symbolic, to mark a turning of the page in policy, said Dan Mahaffee, vice president for the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, a nonpartisan education and public policy organization.

“Early in administrations, executive actions are used to fire up the base, but it also fires up the opposition,” Mahaffee told The Daily Signal.

Trump’s first 100-day plan, which includes potential executive actions on immigration, ethics, and energy, says he will “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum, and order issued by President Obama.”

Geoffrey Skelley, a political analyst with the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, anticipates more than symbolism from Trump’s earliest days.

“On one hand, symbolism could be a good place to start while the administration figures out how to implement a certain policy, but at the same time, I’m more inclined to think Donald Trump will run right into the fire,” Skelley said.

In the 100-day plan, Trump has said he would impose a lifetime ban on former White House staffers becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.

He also pledged to lift restrictions on energy production, which could include reversing President Barack Obama’s executive-imposed Clean Power Plan, for what he said would be $50 trillion worth of jobs.

With regard to immigration, the Islamic State and Obamacare, some actions could be broad. For example, a president has wide latitude as commander-in-chief to combat the Islamic State.

Only Congress can repeal Obamacare. However, Trump could reverse some of the executive enforcement actions by the Obama administration, such as directing the Department of Health and Human Services to end mandated insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and therapy or surgery for gender transition.

On immigration, which was a signature issue for Trump during the campaign, he has said one of the actions he would take in the first 100 days is canceling federal funding to sanctuary cities or municipalities that don’t enforce federal immigration law.

Trump has also vowed to begin removing more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country, which is largely a federal law enforcement matter. (For more from the author of “Trump Day One Executive Actions Could Include Immigration, Obamacare, ISIS, and Trade” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Team Right to Consider ‘Dramatic’ Cuts to Federal Budget

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Hill reported Thursday that President-elect Donald Trump’s team is considering “dramatic” cuts to the federal budget, using as a baseline a report issued in 2016 by The Heritage Foundation.

Predictably, the left is having an absolute meltdown.

The bloggers at Slate fanned themselves with sanctimonious tweets from people who clearly hadn’t read the Heritage proposals. Meanwhile, the liberals at Salon and Mother Jones took to their fainting couches over the idea that Trump might eliminate the Violence Against Women grants—failing, of course, to note that the Government Accountability Office has already questioned the effectiveness of the grant program.

What all this hand-wringing and hysteria ignores is why contemplating budget cuts is so vitally necessary.

This country is almost $20 trillion in debt. Our entitlement programs—Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security—are headed toward bankruptcy. The U.S. continues to finance its spending with money it doesn’t have, making nations like China our largest creditor.

In 2015, the national debt exceeded 100 percent of everything the economy produced in goods and services—a warning siren if there ever was one, as countries with debt-to-gross domestic product ratios above 90 percent experience a significant reduction in economic growth.

Without meaningful reforms, America is on track to become economically stagnant and permanently debt-bound.

That is why it should come as no surprise that the new president is focused on tackling America’s debt crisis. The Trump team received several mandates from the voters in November, but one of them was to get the bloated federal budget under control.

If it hews to the Heritage “Blueprint for Balance,” it’ll start by first tackling programs that are wasteful, duplicative, and inefficient—not the vital government services that feverish liberals would have you believe.

For example, have you heard of the catfish inspection program? This program is so wasteful and duplicative that the Government Accountability Office has tried no less than nine times to get rid of it. In 2016, the Senate voted to do just that, but without corresponding action from the House of Representatives, the program remains.

Eliminating it would save $14 million a year. (And lest you worry about the cleanliness of your catfish, a similar program already exists at the Food and Drug Administration, where it runs at a cost of $700,000 a year.)

Or maybe you didn’t know that the Environmental Protection Agency has a whole lot of office space that it isn’t using. If it leased all of it out, the agency could save $22 million in one year. On a similar note, if we eliminated just one of the many corporate welfare programs within the federal government, we could save anywhere from $15 million to $500 million a year.

These are the low-hanging fruit of budget cuts: easy and obvious ways to save money. Unfortunately, it’s still not enough to right the fiscal ship. Tough choices—trade-offs between spending and saving—must be made.

Over the years, the role of government has expanded into almost every area of modern life. Reducing spending requires reducing that footprint. That’s why the blueprint proposes to eliminate organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts.

While some may argue that government has a role in fostering the growth of culture, the government simply does not have the resources to do this while simultaneously promoting fiscally prudent growth.

As it stands, the American citizens are doing pretty well advocating the arts—in 2014, Americans gave $358 billion to charity, and of that, nearly $18 billion went to the arts and humanities. Rather than writhing in their sackcloth and ashes over this “draconian” cut in spending, liberals should be applauding this private philanthropy.

The same calculus goes for the tough choices that must be made at agencies across the government. Should we have an entire government office focused on promoting energy efficiency when the private market is already meeting this need? Should there really be an entire bank paying foreign firms and foreign governments to purchase American goods from already wealthy corporations?

Tackling spending requires a review of government priorities. It means looking at programs through a critical lens, with an eye toward responsible stewardship, efficient allocation, and the role of government.

To liberals who think every cent of government spending is sacrosanct, any budget cut means the end of the world. But to the rest of America, to those who want to live in a country with a strong economy with well-managed resources, the actions of the Trump team are a breath of fresh—and very necessary—air. (For more from the author of “Trump Team Right to Consider ‘Dramatic’ Cuts to Federal Budget” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

These New Yorkers Prefer Martial Law to Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

In case you missed it, last week TV comedienne Rosie O’ Donnell called for President Obama to impose martial law and stop the inauguration of Donald Trump:

I FULLY SUPPORT IMPOSING MARTIAL LAW – DELAYING THE INAUGURATION – UNTIL TRUMP IS “CLEARED” OF ALL CHARGES https://t.co/fUn8FZ8RTj

— ROSIE (@Rosie) January 12, 2017

There are no charges pending against the President-Elect, so it is unclear what Ms. O’Donnell means. Perhaps she is referring to the unproven assertions that Russia was involved in leaking authentic, damaging emails from inside the Hillary Clinton campaign. In any case, the impact of those emails on the election themselves is unclear, and there is no Constitutional provision for preventing the inauguration of a president because of alleged foreign influence on public opinion — influence of the kind which the Obama administration apparently tried to exert in Israeli and Ukrainian elections. Meanwhile, Politico has reported that the government of Ukraine leaked documents damaging to the Trump campaign, in an attempt to aid the Clinton campaign.

On Fox News Jeanine Pirro responded to O’Donnell in stinging terms:

How many anti-Trump voters would rather see soldiers patrolling our streets to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, than allow Trump to take power on Friday?

New Yorkers Who Want a Military Coup

Anti-Sharia group the American Freedom Defense Initiative decided to find out. It sent a camera crew on to the streets of New York City, which went heavily for Hillary Clinton, to see what New Yorkers thought of O’Donnell’s proposal.

Let’s tally up the left’s post-election hissy fit:

Anti-democratic calls like O’Donnell’s for a military coup,

frenzied attempts by media elites to delegitimize our country’s political process with baseless reports that Russia “hacked the election,”

browbeating and threats aimed at getting entertainers to boycott the inauguration, including a death threat aimed at blind opera singer (and Trump family friend) Andrea Bocelli,

plans for an acid attack on the inauguration itself.

This was not an election the left was prepared to lose. After eight years of Obama’s executive arrogance, liberals have begun to take power for granted, to treat the presidency as a perk that naturally comes to those with “correct” opinions. The frenzied response of elites to their rejection by the voters vindicates all the more those of us who warned before the election how critical its outcome would be. It points up how foolish were those conservatives who preferred a Hillary victory.

Survey the crassness and recklessness that the left is displaying in defeat. Now imagine how haughty and aggressive it would have proven had it triumphed. (For more from the author of “These New Yorkers Prefer Martial Law to Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why CNN Contributor Marc Lamont Hill Was Wrong to Call Trump’s Diversity Council ‘Mediocre Negroes’

/0 Comments/in , /by

What do NFL stars Jim Brown and Ray Lewis, Family Feud host Steve Harvey, rap great Kanye West, megachurch pastor Darrell Scott, Dr. Ben Carson, and Martin Luther King, III, have in common? They are all black. They have all met with (or worked with) President-elect Trump and spoken of their interaction positively. And they are apparently guilty of being “mediocre Negroes” in the eyes of CNN-contributor and Morehouse College professor Marc Lamont Hill.

Speaking about Trump’s new “diversity coalition,” Hill described them as “a bunch of mediocre Negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people.”

And speaking of Steve Harvey, who recently met with Trump and said he would be working with Dr. Carson to help the HUD, Hill opined, “My disagreement is the way in which [Steve Harvey is] being used by folk like Donald Trump. Again, his intention is just to have a seat at the table. But when you’re at the table, you should have experts at the table. You should have people who can challenge the president at the table.”

When Hill was castigated for this comment, he quickly claimed he wasn’t talking about Jim Brown, the NFL legend who stood side by side with Muhammad Ali for years, or of Steve Harvey, or even of Ben Caron, whom he described as a “mediocre choice for HUD” but an “extraordinary human.” Instead, he stated that he “referred to the Trump Diversity Council,” of which neither Brown nor Harvey were a part.

I will take Hill at his word, but it’s quite odd, to say the least, to mention Harvey in the very same interview in which he speaks of these “mediocre Negroes,” also stating that “because they keep bringing up comedians and actors and athletes to represent black interests [it’s] demeaning, it’s disrespectful, and it’s condescending. Bring some people up there with some expertise, Donald Trump, don’t just bring up people to entertain.”

So, these “comedians and actors and athletes” — which would certainly include Brown, Lewis, Harvey, and probably West — are not “mediocre Negroes,” simply because they didn’t appear in the photo-op for the president’s diversity council? Really? And he can use the same word, “mediocre,” when speaking of Carson as the presumptive head of HUD but he didn’t mean to say that Carson was a “mediocre Negro.” Seriously?

It’s Ugly & Racist

Either way, whomever he was speaking about, how is it not ugly and racist to call a fellow black person a Negro, let alone a mediocre Negro?

Can you imagine if a conservative white broadcaster like Sean Hannity — or even a conservative black commentator like Larry Elder — said something like that on Fox News? The moral indignation and the calls for that person’s head would be both non-stop and over the top. (Just think of what happened to sports commentator and baseball great Curt Schilling, himself a conservative, fired from ESPN after what was deemed an offensive Facebook meme about bathroom access for transgenders.)

But a black commentator on liberal CNN can use the derogatory term “Negro,” surely pointing back to an earlier period in our history when blacks quietly suffered indignation and segregation, and to date, to my knowledge the network has neither rebuked him nor distanced itself from his comment.

More insultingly, some of those who have been part of Trump’s National Diversity Coalition include Bruce Levell, a prominent Georgia Republican, Alveda King, Dr. King’s niece, Lynne Patton, vice president of the Eric Trump Foundation, Brunell Donald-Kyei, an attorney and former Democratic Lt. Gov. candidate for the state of Illinois, and Dr. N. Denise Mitchem, VP of Corporate Relations and Government Affairs, UST Global — all of them black. Are they part of Hill’s group of “mediocre Negroes”?

As for Hill’s accusation that all these people are being used as tools “for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people,” does that “exploitative campaign” include things like improving the quality of life in the inner-cities, providing more job opportunities for black Americans, undoing the destructive policies of the left, and appointing people like Carson to head up HUD?

“Blackness” Measured by Ideology

What I find most galling, though, is that, for quite a few years now, “blackness” is measured by one’s ideology rather than by the color of one’s skin (or even by a person’s life experience). Consequently, black friends of mine who are conservative are commonly told by their fellow-blacks that they are “not black enough” or “not black anymore,” as if they have not had the same life experiences or are not subject to the same racial profiling.

Black is now an ideology more than a skin color. (Similarly, “gay” not only describes a sexual orientation but an ideology, and conservative gays are seen as betraying their real identity.)

Not surprisingly, on his Prager U video “The Top 5 Issues Facing Black Americans,” Taleeb Starkes, himself black, listed as problem number 4 “Lack of Diversity,” decrying the virtual absence of “honest dialogue between blacks and blacks.”

Dare to differ with the party line, and you’re a traitor to the cause and a traitor to your people. You’re hardly even black anymore. You’re just a “mediocre Negro.”

In my book, it’s not much better for a black man to refer to a fellow black person as a “mediocre Negro” because of a difference in ideology than for a white man to refer to a black person as a n***** because he hates the color of his skin.

Are they not both blatant examples of racism? And are not Hill’s comments the latest example of divisive and destructive identity politics? If you read this, Mr. Hill, surely you can do better. Surely you can step higher, unless your agenda is to divide and destroy.

Is it? (For more from the author of “Why CNN Contributor Marc Lamont Hill Was Wrong to Call Trump’s Diversity Council ‘Mediocre Negroes'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Inauguration Protesters Dishonor Long-Held Principle

/0 Comments/in , /by

More than any other political act, the orderly transfer of power from one administration to another at a presidential inauguration demonstrates convincingly that we are a nation of laws and not of men.

Even with the closest of outcomes and the losing side’s understandable disappointment—and even anger—victor and vanquished normally pledge to work together for the common good.

Unfortunately, a coalition of left-wing radicals has now pledged to do all that it can to disrupt Donald Trump’s inauguration, including blocking streets and perhaps bridges, preventing people from assembling along the parade route, spreading false “news” about the ceremony’s participants and their remarks, and pledging a “permanent opposition” to the Trump presidency.

One newspaper referred to the left’s “post-election frenzy of fundraising, war rooms, protests and social media hysteria.”

This radical left has ignored the example set by past presidential losers such as former Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who after suffering defeat demonstrated their respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by a little more than half a million votes (out of 101.4 million cast) but won the electoral vote by the slimmest of margins—271 to 266, one vote more than the 270 needed.

Gore could have refused to accept the Supreme Court’s decision putting a stop to ballot counting in Florida, but instead, he said that “for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”

Gore quoted Stephen Douglas’ comments to Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency: “Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.” With his concession remarks, Gore provided an example of high statesmanship rather than low partisanship.

A little more than two months ago, Trump lost the popular vote to Clinton by nearly 3 million votes out of 129 million cast, but won the electoral vote decisively by 306 to 232 votes.

Many Clinton supporters remain in deep denial, lending their support to the disaffected and the disgruntled who have promised to protest at the inauguration of Trump.

To her credit, Clinton has not encouraged the protests, but has rather stood by what she said at her concession speech on election night: “I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans.”

Endeavoring to put politics behind her, Clinton said that “we owe [Trump] an open mind and a chance to lead” and acknowledged the importance of “the peaceful transfer of power.”

We do not know what Trump, ever unpredictable, will say in his speech after he has taken the oath of office to become our 45th president. But we have reason to believe that his inaugural address will be, at least in part, Reaganesque—optimistic and confident.

Speaking of Ronald Reagan, I think (as I wrote in National Affairs) that 2017 resembles 1981 in several significant ways.

Republicans have accumulated a vast backlog of conservative ideas over the past eight years that were blocked by President Barack Obama and are now available to Trump.

Similarly, The Heritage Foundation’s 1980 “Mandate for Leadership” contained a mountain of conservative policy reforms going back decades that helped Reagan move the federal government in a conservative direction.

Even so, Heritage has now offered the Trump administration a similarly comprehensive blueprint for conservative policies in every federal department and agency.

These include repeal of Obamacare and the creation of a free-market health care program; the repeal of Dodd-Frank and the shutting down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; restoration of the work requirements for federal welfare; a flat tax rate on personal income; a commitment to traditional marriage; and the strengthening of our armed forces so that they are second to none.

The 2016 election returns have given conservatives a golden opportunity. The conservative agenda has proven solutions to many of the problems that led so many Americans—more than 61 million—to vote for the change that Trump promised.

It is now up to conservatives to convince policymakers from the White House to the statehouses to pursue the right path, to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and those we love. (For more from the author of “Trump Inauguration Protesters Dishonor Long-Held Principle'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Lust for Respect Makes National Unity Implausible

/0 Comments/in , /by

“For many years,” Donald Trump tweeted Sunday afternoon, “our country has been divided, angry and untrusting. Many say it will never change, the hatred is too deep. IT WILL CHANGE!!!!”

As persuasive as the ALL CAPS are, I have my doubts.

Put aside Trump’s specific shortcomings for the moment. The presidency has become ill-suited to the task of unifying the country, because the presidency has become the biggest prize and totem in the culture war. Like the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants in England, if one side controls the throne, it is seen as an insult and threat to the other. And whoever holds the throne is seen as a kind of personal Protector of the Realm.

The political parties have been utterly complicit in the process. Exploiting social media and other technologies, Republicans and Democrats shape their messages around the assumption that they — and they alone — have legitimate ownership of America’s authentic best self. That’s why whichever party is out of power promises to “take back America” — as if the other side were foreign invaders.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 in no small part to fulfill the promise of his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote address: to banish the slicing and dicing of America into Red States and Blue States. (Read more from “Trump’s Lust for Respect Makes National Unity Implausible” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.