Oops: Suddenly, The New Yorker Is A Bit Concerned Over Executive Actions

By William Teach August 1, 2016 – 11:40 am

Yesterday, we had the Washington Post being all concerned with too much executive action. But, only if Trump wins. Not really that Obama has gone hog wild with them. Today, James Surowiecki at the New Yorker is a bit concerned

THE PERILS OF EXECUTIVE ACTION
Obama used the power of the pen to make policy. What would Trump do?

Huh. Nothing on what Hillary would do? Anyhow, it does start out with Obama’s increased unilateral power grab (which is defended later in the article), then we get

Donald Trump has made it clear that he sees Obama as having “led the way” in using executive action aggressively and that, if elected, he intends to do the same. “I’m going to do a lot of right things,” he has said, and he’s pledged to reverse many of Obama’s executive orders and memorandums “within two minutes” of taking office. Most concretely, he has promised to use his power to restrict entry to the U.S. in order to curb immigration from any country “compromised by terrorism.” In Trump’s view, that includes Germany and France. He’s also likely to step up deportation of undocumented immigrants, resurrect the Keystone XL pipeline, declare China a currency manipulator, and reopen coal leases on federal land.

Not everything Obama has done with his executive power will be as easy for Trump to overturn. Regulations that have gone through a formal rulemaking process, such as the Clean Power Plan, typically can’t just be discarded by a new incumbent. That’s why Obama’s executive agencies, like those of his predecessors, spent the final year of the Administration hurriedly initiating a host of regulatory proposals—so that the proposals could make it through the rulemaking process before Obama leaves office.

Still, were Trump to win, many of Obama’s accomplishments would be under threat. Even rules that can’t be rescinded can be left unenforced. Trump, who says that global warming is “bullshit,” has vowed to cancel the Paris Agreement. Technically, he can’t, but the deal has no enforcement mechanism, so he’d be free to just ignore the Paris goals and do nothing about greenhouse-gas emissions. And what Trump can’t reverse with his pen he can mitigate with executive-branch appointments, as Ronald Reagan did when he named the rabid anti-environmentalist James Watt to head the Department of the Interior.

And there’s the rub of the matter: what Democrats are really upset over is that Trump could use executive actions to roll back Obama’s big government actions, along with simply refusing to enforce previous rule making. They don’t care whether Hillary would continue to use lots of unilateral executive actions, because they would be helpful to their cause.

Random thought: I will never understand why Progressives/Statists/Democrats think increasing the power of the central government, along with the President and the Executive Branch, is a good idea. They never stop to think that all the negative aspects will effect themselves. They think it’s all lollipops and unicorns, and the Bad Things will happen to Other People.

Read: Oops: Suddenly, The New Yorker Is A Bit Concerned Over Executive Actions »

Posted in Donald Trump, Liberal World | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: Voters Want A Total Revolt Against Immigration

By William Teach August 1, 2016 – 8:32 am

I’m rather conflicted about this poll, too be honest. Much of it seems to be focused on legal immigration, when the focus should be on illegal immigration. But, there are some seriously interesting tidbits

(Breitbart) New polling data shows that it would be virtually impossible for Hillary Clinton to win the general election if the Republican nominee were able to frame the immigration issue in populist terms that emphasize reducing the overall amount of immigration into the country and protecting jobs, incomes, and benefits for the domestic population.

The poll was conducted by Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, in conjunction with Breitbart News Network, and surveyed a random selection of 2,010 registered voters throughout the nation.

“The poll shows that instead of dividing Americans, immigration is an issue where Americans have reached the consensus that it is a problem, maybe the problem,” said Doug Kaplan, the managing partner of Gravis Marketing.

The big problem here for Republicans, and specifically Trump, who I assume is the target to use this data, is how to nuance it to highlight the belief that reducing immigration is good without being accused of hating immigrants, much like how the Democrats attempt to shift the debate regarding illegals.

Whereas the media and Democrats try to frame the immigration issue as pitting native-born Americans against foreign-born Americans, the polling reveals that Republicans should offer a completely different framing of the issue– one which focuses on the interests of the domestic American population– and all of its members (i.e. foreign-born, native-born, etc.)–versus the interests of the world’s seven billion people that live outside the United States.

That could be dangerous, as this needs much more nuance, and Trump doesn’t do nuance well. Here are a few things the poll found (many have explanatory paragraphs, I’ll leave it to you to hit the link and read it)

  • By a nearly 6 to 1 margin, U.S. voters believe immigration should be decreased rather than increased.
  • By a 25-to-1 margin, voters believe that unemployed American workers should get preference for a U.S. job rather than a foreign worker brought in from another country.
  • Sixty one percent of voters believe that any politician, “who would rather import foreign workers to take jobs rather than give them to current U.S. residents, is unfit to hold office.”
  • Three out of four voters believe the nation needs “an immigration system that puts American workers first, not an immigration system that serves the demands of donors seeking to reduce labor costs.”
  • A majority of U.S. voters (53%) believe “record amounts of immigration into the U.S. have strained school resources and disadvantaged U.S. children.”
  • A majority of voters (55%) disagree with Hillary Clinton’s call to release illegal immigrants arriving at the border into the United States and give them a chance to apply for asylum.
  • Roughly three out of four voters— including nearly three out of four Democrat voters— believe that “instead of giving jobs and healthcare to millions of refugees from around the world, we should rebuild our inner cities and put Americans back to work.”

Now, how to frame this for what are essentially sound bite campaigns? Americans are certainly a bit upset over the number of illegals coming to the country, and have a problem with legals coming in on short work visas and taking American jobs. They also have a problem with bringing in refugees who share little to no mores with Americans, will be tough to assimilate, and may very well hold Islamic extremist views. They’ve seen the reports out of Europe, and want nothing to do with the crime, rape, sexual assaults, and terrorism, not too mention the demands that Europe cave to their extremist demands.

Read: Poll: Voters Want A Total Revolt Against Immigration »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Change Has Burst Forth To The Forefront Of The Presidential Campaign Or Somethin

By William Teach August 1, 2016 – 8:13 am

You know, like it burst forth in 2012, and 2008, and 2000. Even though almost no one is talking about it except those few who push the subject and those who push back against it.

Climate Change Divide Bursts to Forefront in Presidential Campaign

During the 2012 race for president, the issue of climate change was nearly invisible. President Obama and his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, almost never spoke about it, and it did not come up during their debates. There was far more talk of ramping up oil and gas production than cutting emissions.

Say what? Obama talked about it quite a bit.

But this year, as Hillary Clinton thrusts climate change to the heart of her campaign, the issue is taking on a prominence it has never before had in a presidential general election.

In speeches, Mrs. Clinton regularly highlights her plan to combat global warming, and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, praised her at the Democratic National Convention last week for putting it at “the center” of her foreign policy. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her main rival in the primaries, spoke of the issue forcefully, saying that “this election is about climate change.” The party platform calls for a price — essentially a tax — on carbon pollution.

If a reporter is calling it carbon pollution, then they are biased, and scientifically illiterate, much like the rest of the Cult of Climastrology. All in all, though, I doubt Hillary cares that much about the subject, beyond being one which every good Statist/Progressive should love: the ability to raise taxes, make citizens more dependent on government, and increase central governmental control over energy, the economy, and private citizens and private entities. Now that’s something Hillary would love.

Of course, the rest of the article is more about bashing Trump than providing any true evidence that this has become a major campaign issue, nor providing any scientific evidence that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by the same human activities that most Democrats/Warmists refuse to give up in their own lives.

A Gallup poll in March found that 65 percent of Americans believed that climate change was caused by human activity, an increase of 10 points from a year earlier. The poll found that 38 percent of Republicans believed the same thing, an increase of four points from a year earlier. The poll also found that 76 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 accepted that human activity is behind climate change.

And then you put that up against polls of things that actually concern Americans, and it tends to come in last or next to last. A recent YouGov poll found that only 9.2% found it to be the biggest issue. And, despite all the spreading awareness and the massive media push, government push, and money from Warmist backers, just 3% found Hotcoldwetdry to be the most important issue in a pre-Paris climate meeting poll. Heck, only 6% of Democrats listed ‘climate change’ as their biggest concern.

Again, though, the article is about bashing Trump, and even highlights those few Republicans who have bought into the beliefs of the Cult of Climastrology.

But, do you know how important this issue is? It’s not even in the paper edition of the paper. Just the web. And while it is prominently displayed on the web app, it’s just a little headline way down the full Internet page.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Climate Change Has Burst Forth To The Forefront Of The Presidential Campaign Or Somethin »

Posted in Elections, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 31, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible water park wasting water that will soon disappear in a massive drought, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pajamas Media, with a post on SJWs upset over Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman.

It’s waterpark week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach July 31, 2016 – 9:12 am

Happy Sunday! A wonderful summer day here in America, the greatest nation on Earth. This pinup is by Tatiana Doronina, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Weasel Zippers notes a mural of Hillary in a swimsuit is causing waves
  2. Virtual Mirage offers up Prog Land
  3. Victory Girls Blog has a dilemma as to whether Trump or not
  4. The Other McCain notes the flopping of the SJW Ghostbusters
  5. The Lid notes that Reverend Barber got Jesus wrong at the DNC
  6. The Last Refuge notes Hillary already cancelling campaign appearances, and the last photos will freak you out
  7. Raised On Hoecakes covers who’s more compassionate, Dems or Republicans
  8. Pamela Geller has some interesting DNC emails, where they cheer job loss
  9. Moonbattery discusses the Navy naming a ship after Harvey Milk
  10. Gates Of Vienna has another fun Muslim destroying a church
  11. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes American flags confiscated and thrown on floor at a Hillary event
  12. DaTechGuy covers Nate Silver telling Dems to panic
  13. Creeping Sharia notes Hillary’s ties to an al Qaeda fundraiser
  14. Chicks On The Right notes media silence on a KKK Grand Wizard endorsing Hillary
  15. And last, but not least, Capitalism Is Freedom notes a bikini clad cop stopping a bad guy

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Suddenly, Washington Post Is Very Concerned Over The Expanding Power Of The Presidency

By William Teach July 31, 2016 – 8:00 am

We’ve just spend 7+ years living under a president (perhaps yours, not mine) who has increased the power of the Chief Executive and the agencies which report to him by leaps and bounds. Obama has used whatever power he could take, legally or not, constitutionally or not, whenever he wants. The rule making emanating from the White House and federal agencies has been breathtaking. But, now, this is suddenly a problem. From the hoity-toity halls of the Washington Post, can you guess why? The headline says it all

Donald Trump and the expanding power of the presidency

The web front page headline reads “Today’s presidency offers almost unchecked power, enabling a potential Trump administration.” Obviously, this is all about Trump using the power of the presidency, as expanded by many presidents, without really noting that a) Obama has done more than any modern president, and b) Hillary would do much the same. Though, whether she would blow off Congress, even those in her own party, as Obama has done is up for question

Donald Trump has promised not only to be the voice of the American people but also to take decisive, immediate action. As president, he has said he would move fast to destroy the Islamic State, scrap bad trade deals, build that wall, “stop the gangs and the violence,” and “stop the drugs from pouring into our communities.” He would “immediately suspend immigration” from countries where terrorism is rampant. He might even defy treaty obligations and decline to aid NATO allies.

The Republican nominee has led some to conclude that he intends a sweeping expansion of presidential authority. His rhetoric implies a muscular, almost unitary, presidency that would be at least as expansive as what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. famously dubbed the “imperial presidency” — his critique of Richard Nixon’s abuse of power in the era of Watergate and Vietnam.

But scholars of the presidency say that Barack Obama, George W. Bush and their predecessors have added so many powers to the White House toolbox that a President Trump could fulfill many of his promises legally — and virtually unchecked by a Congress that has proven incapable of mustering much pushback for decades .

Interesting. Hillary has made lots of promises to Do Things: why does this not apply to her? Candidates make all sorts of promises during election season. Suddenly, Donald’s are Bad. Like Hitler bad

Trump’s critics hear his sweeping promises as the words of a classic strongman, a ruler who seems prepared to push aside the cobwebs of bureaucracy and the checks and balances of American federalism to produce instant, decisive action. Critics have compared him to Mussolini, Hitler, Vladi­mir Putin, Saddam Hussein and Argentina’s Juan Perón. Trump has praised Putin and Hussein for being tough on terrorism. In the past, Trump has singled out China’s crackdown against pro-democracy activists in Tiananmen Square in 1989 as a demonstration of “the power of strength.”

Of course they do. Why not Hillary, though? For that matter, what about Obama, who has, furthermore, use and/or allowed federal agencies to target and abuse private citizens and groups that oppose him? Does that not bear the marks of a classic strongman?

The long article continues in its concern that a president Trump (not a president Hillary, mind you, because she’s a Democrat) would become an uber-unilateral president, forgoing Congress. Without mentioning Obama doing exactly that.

If a president does overstep his authority, Congress could cut off his funding or impeach him, but a President Trump could counter with the power of the bully pulpit.

Huh. When the GOP attempted to do this to Obama, Democrats and their media Comrades screamed bloody murder.

But Devins has concluded that the record of the past two decades shows that Congress “lacks both the will and the way to check the presidency.

“Today’s system of checks and balances,” he said , “is an abject failure.”

Suddenly, liberals are concerned about this. Where was the concern the past 7+ years? We know the answer.

But, let’s be clear: this expansion of power is a bad thing. While I certainly have a concern with Trump’s Big Government leanings, what’s wrong with rolling back federal regulations enacted by executive actions? He could hamstring much of Obamacare while simply following the law. He could eliminate the Contraception mandate, the work rules requirements, all the IRS positions created to fine citizens, and so much more. He could roll back the EPA’s ‘climate change’ rules, such as the Clean Power Plan, along with the dictatorial Waters Of The US plan. Negate the Paris climate accord and Iran deal. He could simply use the power of the presidency to enforce the law on illegal aliens.

But, article Marc Fisher does sorta make a good point earlier in the fable

Some Trump initiatives, such as repealing the Affordable Care Act, cutting taxes or expanding Social Security, would require extensive, close work with Congress. But presidents already have the power to do much of what Trump has proposed. Congress has given the president the authority to negotiate trade deals, for example, and Trump could try to renegotiate the nuclear deal with Iran.

I’ve beaten on this subject before, the notion that Congress crafts legislation that is entirely too broad, which allows the Executive Branch to create rules and regulation, which carry the force of law to the point of criminal and civil penalties against private citizens and entities, out of seemingly thin air. For instance, there is not one instance where the words “sterilization” and “contraception” appear in the Patient Protection (snicker) and Affordable (snicker) Care Act, nor any mention of abortifacients in an manner. This was created out of thin air by HHS. The bill was so big and broad that things can almost be done at will. The Environmental Protection Act was a very good idea. It has since been expanded by the EPA and other agencies to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean.

This is the case for so much legislation, which is often so broad that the Executive Office can find a rationale for doing as they will at will. Legislation, when passed, should be specific with no wiggle room. Deal with the specific subject, and, if the POTUS wants more, he/she should come to Congress and provide the reason why, along with a plan that includes things like implementation, who is in charge, and the expected results. It is the role of the Executive Office to enforce law as passed by Congress, not create it themselves. If the legislation isn’t specific, it gives the EO the ability to take power.

And, while we’re at it, repeal the 17th Amendment and institute term limits on Congress.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Suddenly, Washington Post Is Very Concerned Over The Expanding Power Of The Presidency »

Posted in Liberal World | 29 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Ontario Tries To Bury Cost Of ‘Climate Change’ Policy

By William Teach July 30, 2016 – 2:30 pm

The cost of the Cult of Climastrology’s policies have real world implications for consumers. They just don’t want you to know about it

(Financial Post) Ontario consumers won’t see a separate line item on their electricity bills showing the cost of the Liberal government’s cap-and-trade plan to fight climate change.

The Ontario Energy Board has decided charges related to the cost of the program, which is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, will be included in the ’delivery’ line charge on hydro bills.

The board admits utilities and industrial natural gas users argued for a separate line item to provide greater transparency to customers about the cost of cap-and-trade, but it says consumer groups said that wasn’t necessary.

Just too be clear, many of the people complaining about not getting what they want are often the same people who voted in the politicians who implemented the Hotcoldwetdry policies. Now they are shocked that government is going to be less than transparent in showing just how much the cap and trade policies cost them.

The Opposition accuses the government of trying to “bury the evidence” on bills that cap-and-trade is another “cash grab,” and says it’s “apparent” that the energy board is more concerned about protecting the Liberals than consumers.

PC energy critic John Yakabuski says people have a right to know exactly how much the government’s climate change plans will cost them every month.

Yakabuski says to make matters even worse, consumers will pay the HST on top of the cap-and-trade costs, which he says amounts to “a tax on top of a tax.”

This will supposedly raise $1.9 billion (Canadian money) a year. The government plans on spending $8.3 billion on all sorts of spreading awareness, nagging, and forced changes campaigns. Virtually every carbon market has fallen into junk bond status, so, all this money has to come from somewhere. That would be you average citizen.

Read: Surprise: Ontario Tries To Bury Cost Of ‘Climate Change’ Policy »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 30, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil plastic water bottle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Wizbang, with a post telling Ann Coulter to go away.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Say, Can Climate Action Woo Suburban Voters?

By William Teach July 30, 2016 – 8:22 am

Once again, climate change tends to come in last or next to last on lists of things that concern Americans. Somehow, Democrats think that pushing climate change will woo suburban voters

(Grist) Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, one of the leading climate hawks in Congress, thinks climate change can be a potent political issue this fall.

“I think it’s a very powerful suburban swing-voter issue,” Markey told Grist during a reception at the Democratic National Convention. “In the suburbs, people care about clean water, clean air, climate science. They are, in large part, in a position where they can prioritize it because to a large extent they’re doing well, but they can’t protect their families from climate change.” And wooing suburban swing voters, Markey says, will be essential for a presidential candidate to build a winning coalition.

He’s right on that last point, at least. Cities lean liberal and rural areas lean conservative, but the majority of Americans live in suburbs, so that’s wherepresidential elections are won and lost. And college-educated white voters — a mostly suburban group — are a key swing constituency. Counterintuitively, though, college-educated Republicans and independents are actually less likely to fully accept climate science than non-college educated Republicans and independents.

Yeah, that’s the ticket. Spend lots of time and money (not too mention all that fossil fuel showing you’re a hypocrite) woo people on an issue that is virtually unimportant to the suburban voters. Tell them about how all this “climate action” will increase their taxes, increase their energy costs, and increase their cost of living. Tell them how it will require them to make costly upgrades to their homes and home appliances, and restrict which ones they can use. Tell them it will limit their consumer choice and personal liberty. Tell them how it will put more power over their lives in the hands of a central government and its bureaucracy. That should work out well.

Meanwhile, what do Dem voters think of ‘climate change’ vs terrorism?

(The Blaze) Voters attending the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia this week faced the question of which issue concerns them more — climate change or the Islamic State terrorist threat. And their answers fell in line with Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent claim that climate change is at least as dangerous as the threats posed by the Islamic State.

The conservative website the Daily Signal asked delegates and attendees of the convention which issue they believe poses a more significant threat to the U.S., and all of the respondents shown on the video were more concerned about climate change.

Total nutters

Read: Say, Can Climate Action Woo Suburban Voters? »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Breitbart: It’s Time For Conservatives To Back Trump Because He Will Implement Conservatism

By William Teach July 30, 2016 – 8:06 am

Breitbart’s Scott Pinsker takes a swing at attempting to woo those Conservatives who do not support Trump in one form or fashion, starting out with

What’s more important: Conservative beliefs or conservative outcomes?

The two are not the same.

In American politics, the relationship between beliefs and outcomes isn’t necessarily causal, and for generations, this distinction has been the fatal flaw in the conservative movement – the poison arrow to our Myrmidonian heel.

He spends a long time explaining how previous “conservative” presidents and a Congress controlled by the GOP has failed to enact conservative legislation in order to push Trump as The Guy Who Can Get Conservative Policies Enacted. A long time. A long time. The problem here is that this attempts to blame Conservative voters, rather than elected officials who go squishy, and also forgets that many Republicans claim to be Conservatives, but, are really just Republicans. There’s a difference.

Anyhow, on to Trump

Because conservative beliefs do not necessarily lead to conservative outcomes – and this is why the Trump candidacy represents a generational opportunity for conservative voters to finally achieve conservative results.

Beliefs matter, but tactics, leadership, media strategy and executive-level oversight matter as well, and that’s the strongest conservative argument for Donald Trump.

This is, of course, followed by slurring Ted Cruz, not the best way to bring the Cruz voters to your side. But, you know, Trump is totally the guy to get it done in a Conservative manner!

But Trump also fights like hell for what he believes in.  He understands how to market and sell a vast array of goods, concepts and services, and he’s demonstrated an uncanny knack for transforming our 24/7 media culture into his personal Ottoman cushion.  He’s staked his most precious commodity – his reputation – on stopping illegal immigration, crushing ISIS, rebuilding the economy, streamlining the federal government, reining-in waste, promoting a conservative judiciary, diminishing the power of liberals, negotiating better agreements, and achieving conservative outcomes.

Question: If you’re an ideological conservative, would you prefer a chief executive who goes Medieval on his political opponents to achieve 75 percent of what you believe, or an unaccomplished philosopher-king who agrees with you 100 percent of the time, but lacks the skill-set to implement any of it?

Another slap at Cruz, but, I have to ask, what actual experience does Trump have in getting things done in government? He may or may not be able to deal with a board of directors numbering 535.

And to be fair, Trump’s philosophy isn’t exactly left-leaning: He’s pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, supports state’s rights, vows to slash government growth, backs a revamped military, and holds Antonin Scalia as his judicial model.

By any subjective standard, that’s a fairly conservative worldview.

Except, not that long ago he was pro-abortion, anti-gun, voting Democrat, and was for the use of government to take private property for the use of other private entities. That ain’t American Conservative, people. Trump cannot even really define American Conservatism.

Trump is not a philosopher-king conservative.  He’s not a purist.  Instead, he’s a mercurial, Machiavellian executive who sidesteps obstacles, cuts corners, manipulates loopholes, gouges eyeballs and leverages positional assets to achieve what he wants.  His focus is on outcomes – on winning – not on ideology. (snip)

For conservatives – and for our country, which is rapidly approaching a tipping-point – it could make all the difference in the world.

It’s time for conservatives to consolidate for Trump.

The problem here is that I, as someone who is #NeverHillary but concerned about Trump being a stealth candidate, am not offered any actual hard reasons to vote Trump. I’m not #NeverTrump, but, if I check the box for Trump, it will be as a vote against Hillary, not one for Trump.

I. Don’t. Trust. Him.

Where’s the evidence that Trump will get things done in an American Conservative manner? Where’s the evidence that he legitimately evolved on issues? Being an American Conservative, also known as Classical Liberalism, is a philosophy. Why must we abandon our principles for someone we do not trust? The same people squeeing over Trump were telling us how bad McCain and Romney were. Both had much stronger conservative cred than Trump. Neither were perfect.

What if Trump’s “outcomes” lean Democrat? Lean Big Government? Lean authoritarian, much like with Obama? I’ll give him props for being anti-illegal immigration for a long time. Also, against ‘climate change’.

Will he actually appoint conservative judges? Will he reign in government spending? Will he do all things he says? Who know? We don’t.

But, let’s consider: we know what Hillary will do. We know the kinds of judges she will appoint, from the Supreme Court down. Would you prefer to roll the dice with Trump, or flip a 2 headed coin with Hillary? We know she’ll grow government, appoint leftist extremists to lead executive branch offices. We know she’ll attempt to implement more socialist medicine, all the way up to single payer. We know she’ll attempt to hamstring business. She’ll attempt to implement restrictive gun control on law abiding citizens. She’ll continue the open borders policies. She’ll continue the march towards a bigger and more powerful centralized government. She’ll allow implementation of economy killing freedom-removing ‘climate change’ policies. The list goes on.

The question comes down to “can you hold your nose and take a chance that Trump isn’t full of mule fritters, that he’ll actually be the guy he says he now is, that he will attempt to do what he says, and check the box for Trump in  vote against Hillary?”

Do know know what would help? If he and his surrogates, along with his ardent supporters, would attempt to woo those not on the Trump train, rather than being nasty and insulting us.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Breitbart: It’s Time For Conservatives To Back Trump Because He Will Implement Conservatism »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove