Tag Archives: commander-in-chief

You’re Fired!



President Donald Trump fired the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, after she refused to perform her duty to defend the legality of his temporary ban on immigrants from terrorist-spawning countries. The purpose of Mr. Trump’s executive order was to help protect Americans from terrorist attacks. Trump has said existing vetting procedures were flimsy and inadequate, and he wants to see strict vetting procedures in place before he lifts the ban.

Ms. Yates’s grandstanding for the media exacerbated her failure to do her job. Mr. Trump had elevated her to acting attorney general pending the drawn out confirmation of Jeff Sessions as attorney general. Instead of turning down Mr. Trump’s offer privately and civilly, she chose to accept his offer, then air out her disagreement with him on immigration policy publicly.

The Declaration states the People may institute a government built on the principles and forms of power “most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” The Constitution echoes and builds on that when it says its purpose is “to form a more Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity… .”

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution grants the president “the executive Power”. Section 2 names him the Commander-in-Chief. Section 3 makes it the president’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.

The president not only has the authority to see our duly enacted immigration laws executed, he has the duty to do so. Nothing in the immigration law and the president’s execution of it violates statutory or constitutional law. If a ban on immigration from violent or ideologically violent countries in the world obtains the defense, safety, and tranquility of the American people, then it is lawful.

When Ms. Yates complained she could not defend Mr. Trump’s ban, she had to defend her warrantless position by asserting she had “to do the right thing.” It’s an irony, because so many people have argued for the severance of law from morality. While I would agree that morality must be weighed when reflecting on law and policy in regard to fundamental questions, prudence and pragmatism play their roles in others.

Do citizens and foreigners own the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities under American law? No. That would be absurd. The government was instituted of the people, by the people, for the people, the people being the citizens. The only way for a foreigner to appropriate the rights, privileges, and responsibilities under American law is to become American, and that means rejecting what he or she was and his or her allegiances. It means accepting what an American is and what our way is as a body politic and as a culture.

Finally, let’s deal with the claim that we cannot ban Muslims from entering the country. The proponents of this position cite two reasons: first, it constitutes a religious test; second, it will inflame terrorist passions and make them terrorize more.

The answer to the first reason is a ban on Muslim entry into our country isn’t based on most of what Islam is but is based on one of its ideologies or tenets: that it is holy and just to kill people who reject Islam or Mohamed. That belief is not merely un-American, it is anti-American. It violates our law. It assaults our Constitution. It transgresses our culture and our reason. The laws of God, of Nature, of man, of our Constitution do not permit murder on religious grounds. Thanks to both our Rationalist and Christian perspective, we reject utterly any such principle. Similarly, we reject those people who bear such a perspective from entering our country and plying their bloody beliefs here.

We are absolutely under no obligation – moral, legal, constitutional, etc – to permit such individuals to enter our country. If the safeguards for preventing the entry of such individuals are defective or deficient, our president has a duty to ban such folks, even en masse, from entering our country and endangering our safety.

Ms. Yates doesn’t understand that simple, legally correct position. Addled by a foreigners first mentality, and having abandoned and lost sight of the people whom she swore to protect, Ms. Yates elevated her personal feelings to the pinnacle of consideration.

As citizens, the members of the Justice Department have the right to agree or disagree with this person or the other and this policy or that policy. They may express their agreement or disagreement among private friends or at the ballot box.

As members of the federal Justice Department, however, every attorney maintains an obligation and responsibility to do his job. They are not advocating for themselves or for a particular political persuasion, they are advocating for the people through the executive branch of the government. The lawyers in the attorney general’s office were not elected by the people; the president was. If for some particular matter the conscience of a member of the Justice Department has become so strained he cannot follow the directives of his chief executive, then he should do the honest and honorable thing and quietly resign.

Yates was warped. She was so warped that she could neither fulfill her duty nor act honorably. She chose to make a scene. The president acted swiftly and decisively: Mr. Trump fired her.

The second complaint, growled and whined by the likes of senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, states that in appearing to single out Islam or Muslims, Mr. Trump inflames their hatred and determination to commit more terrorism, serves as a recruiting tool, and because of those two points, will make Americans more unsafe and ultimately lose the war against terrorism.

One of many good ways to dissolve this line of thinking is to use the analogy of the man who says he loves his wife, so he stalks her and beats her for every real or imagined offense while he lives exactly the way he wants to live. She has to be “made” to love him. He does not really love her as a woman; he loves her as a thing to own and do with as he pleases. His real goal is domination, not love.

The wife develops a mentality that if she can just please him in everything, he will stop beating her. It’s her fault he loses control. She isn’t doing enough. Of course, she never will. And he’ll keep slapping and punching and kicking her, because that is who he is.

It’s the same thing for the Muslim who takes the errors of the Koran to heart. The infidel must be threatened, tortured, killed, or at least extorted for money. The infidels keep thinking it’s their fault. They aren’t diverse enough, they aren’t multicultural enough, they are too trapped in their own biases and prejudices, so they don’t want to make the Muslim mad, because he’ll just threaten, torture, and kill more. The reality is the Muslim will never admit to his own evil and his own problem, the propensity for the Mohamed-sanctioned inhuman violence which is the only commodity with which he trades. Convert or die. Be like me, or die.

The superficial way Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham approach Muslim terror will never solve the problem, which perhaps is not solvable anyway as long as human beings are sinners. The only way to obtain and to keep the upper hand, however, is a mix of force and construction. The United States must meet the violence directed at its citizens with the force necessary to defeat that violence and deter those who would think twice about renewing it. The United States must also take a more proactive approach to remedy the ills of the Muslim nations, if they will allow it. That does not mean abandoning a ban on Muslim immigration; such a ban should be enforced and maintained for as long as necessary. However, it does mean helping to relieve the poverty and oppression of Muslim areas through joint operations to create economic growth and an infrastructure of opportunity.

Nothing remedies misery like opportunity and profit. These should be sought for the good of all, and not just in Muslim lands, but in lands elsewhere around the globe where it is desired by the local people.

It is not the job of Americans or our government to make Muslims part of our country, nor to take on their burdens here. It can be our job, however, to help them take on their burdens in their own countries, to help them develop their own success and profit. Why Muslim countries have not been doing this but instead have wasted their time in religious and political war after war is beyond the ken of the rational mind. Had they channeled the same energy into building up instead of tearing down, who knows how successful those Muslim countries might have become?

Senators McCain and Graham think themselves clever with their superficially softer, more diplomatic approach. The truth is that it has not worked but has only inspired more Muslim mayhem. Former president Barack Obama applied the softer approach for eight years, yet Muslim butchery reached new heights in the United States and in countries around the world, and the Muslim Middle East and North Africa are more war-torn than ever. Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham think their clever artfulness will make the problem smaller. That is a lie, as are their disloyal denunciations of the Republican president.

The truth is, much like with Mrs. Clinton, neither McCain nor Graham, individually or with each other or someone else, has been able to even reduce the problem of Muslim violence, despite their decades of “service” in the Senate. To follow their “lead” is to follow the same ole same ole, which just keeps circling around back to more bloodshed.

A fresh approach, such as the one Mr. Trump is taking and which is placing Americans and America first, is long overdue.


Trump Wins First Presidential Debate


Donald Trump won Monday’s presidential debate against libertine Hillary Clinton with his characteristic blunt spirit of America first, business savvy, and common sense, and he did so despite facing tougher, tilted questions designed to place him in a negative light and Hillary in a glow.

While Hillary’s sophistry appealed to conventional debate graders – we are all so used to seeing and accepting the masks politicians ties around their characters – she lost because her plans amount to a continued crippling of America.

In short, Trump generated more substance if not more details. Here are the concrete reasons – not stylistic nor conventional debate scoring points – that Trump demonstrated:

1. Resume: Trump’s successes vs. Hillary’s “bad experiences”. Once again, the Donald enumerated his business successes in building a multi-billion dollar empire and doing so by coming in under budget and ahead of time on various construction projects. Meanwhile, he pointed out Hillary’s resume of economic incompetence: her and her party’s standing by in the Senate as jobs fled the so-called Rust Belt, an area whose workers had placed their blind faith in Hillary and other Democrat leaders even as empty, decaying homes and factories littered the landscape of the Midwest, Mid Atlantic, and Southern states, killing the spirit of urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods of whites and minorities; failure not only to improve or deter the stagnation and suffering in Americans’ economic life, including wage stagnation, but to actually provide her support for trade deals and economic policies that ripped jobs out of the hands of Americans and shoveled them overseas to the non-Americans she loves and the few she favors, crushing working Americans.

It’s simple to ask: which candidate demonstrated at the debate that he or she has the proven track record of financial management and efficient productivity? The answer is simple, too: Donald Trump.

2. National Security: Which candidate exuded a spirit of America first? Hillary gobbledygooked about her “plans” and the need to follow treaties contracted more than half a century ago and make our allies feel secure in their relationship to us, even though we are footing the bill to protect them. She spouted a platitude about nuclear nonproliferation, even though nonproliferation has been a failure. Trump clearly stated – again – that he will destroy ISIS and he will not take guff from Iran. He’s a fighter. Hillary made fun of his desire to protect our ships and our men from being threatened, boarded, captured, and made to kneel to their captors. Trump reiterated that his plan was to protect and defend America. Which is the posture of a commander-in-chief? He demands that our allies do their fair share. Isn’t that the posture of a leader who places our interests first?

We all understand that one must be careful acting in the international arena. Within that context, however, do we act with courage or do we act with submission. You have seen what has happened during the Obama administration. Hillary wants to continue his legacy.

And Hillary deliberately exposed our country’s secrets to our enemies, though she tried to downplay it last night as only “a mistake”. Can we afford mistakes like that? Is that a sign of competence or incompetence? Good judgment or bad judgment?

Add in Trump’s brilliant line he delivered last night about the cyber war being waged successfully against the United States during the Obama-Hillary time: “We’ve lost control!”

Would you rather have Trump looking out for our boys and our security or Hillary? The answer that comes out of the debate is clear: Trump.

Hillary gave us no reason to trust her on national security and kept telling us to read the lawyerly fine print in her plans. That’s not bringing substance to the debate.

3. Race Relations: Although I think Trump has had a good message to the black community, he did not articulate it as well as he could have last night. In my opinion, he should have emphasized and detailed the economic relief and opportunity he wants to bring to everyone, including blacks. Economic strength solves a lot of issues. The financial suffering and lack of opportunity blacks have undergone spurs much of the anger and violence that afflicts their communities and the extremely difficult situations in which police officers find themselves. Ironically, the trade and immigration policies Hillary has been supporting actually fuel that misery. Her proposal to “retrain” police officers is itself prejudiced and discriminatory, and it utterly fails to address the multi-sided perspective needed to sort out and improve race relations.

Unfortunately, Trump did not explicitly reiterate all the things he said during the economic segment of the debate when the issue turned to race: he will use the power of tariffs against American companies that abandon America and Americans to prevent jobs from leaving and to bring jobs back, and he will spur job creation through tax reform that will entice investors to bring back more than $2 trillion dollars they have stashed overseas. Those things are not merely “trickle down” as Hillary calumniated. They are proposals that give rogue American companies the financial push they need to act as if they had some civic spirit, even if they don’t.

The Moderator’s Questions

If anyone watched the MSNBC feed, as I did, they saw moderator Lester Holt before the debate: nervous, running out of air, gulping, clipping off words. He’s NBC’s national news anchor. Could it be that he felt the weight of the bias his questions were about to evince?

Holt did not ask Hillary any tough questions. Did not challenge her record. And only once did he mention the emails that violated our national security protocols, as if they were nothing. Yet he asked Trump about Obama’s “birther” issue, a sidetrack that has no practical impact on the policies in question to improve our country’s financial and military position. Who cares whether Trump believes Obama was born in this country? Some leaders believe in UFOs, the Illuminati, no God, God, etc., questions that are likely to have far more impact than what a person believes about Obama’s birth. Same with questions about Trump’s businesses and remarks about a woman from decades ago.

Of course, Holt tied the birther issue to race, though there is no connection. Whether a presidential candidate was born in the U.S. isn’t a racial question, it’s a question of fact that relates to constitutional law. Trump also asked about Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada, and when that came up, I heard pundits, like MSNBC’s Lawrence O’ Donnell, say they had spoken to experts who said it was a legitimate issue. The contexts of the Obama and Cruz birth questions were not the same; however, Obama himself exacerbated the birther issue by refusing for quite some time to produce his birth certificate to put the matter to rest.

Meanwhile, not a peep about Hillary’s secret, expensive speeches to Wall Street, which should have come up during the economic segment, especially when she suggested Trump was favoring the rich. Not a peep about her continuing lie about what she told the relatives of the honorable Benghazi Americans she got killed in Libya. Not a peep about her lie about coming under fire at a European airport. The list goes on. Trump stated recently that he believed Obama was born in America. But Hillary has never admitted nor apologized for her lies. Holt, and NBC, want to shape the election by the framework and details they, and their rabid pundits before and after the debate, want to funnel your vision through.

One candidate demonstrated passion and honesty last night by body language, facial expression, and articulation. Donald Trump.

Viewers saw the same old slick, veteran dissembler Hillary has refined herself into being, hiding behind a pastiche of “plans” and pre-packaged catch phrases.

And viewers saw the same establishment media, rigging the system, tilting the questions, and trying to get a toehold in viewers’ minds by applying their “conventional wisdom” onto an unconventional candidate, Donald Trump.

Govern yourselves accordingly.