President Donald Trump denounced his former top strategist, Steve Bannon, on Wednesday in a dramatic break from the man considered an architect of Trump’s populist campaign.
“When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind,” Trump said in a statement issued after the publication of excerpts of a new book in which Bannon criticizes the president and his family. “Now that he is on his own, Steve is learning that winning isn’t as easy as I make it look.”
Steve Bannon
Photographer: Nicole Craine/Bloomberg
Bannon has lost the access to the president that he’s enjoyed since leaving the White House in August, one person familiar with the matter said.
Earlier on Wednesday, The Guardian published excerpts of a forthcoming book by author Michael Wolff in which Bannon predicts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will “crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV” over the president’s son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in June 2016. Bannon also called Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with the lawyer, in which he expected to receive damaging information on Trump’s election opponent Hillary Clinton, “treasonous” and “unpatriotic,” according to the Guardian.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters at a briefing that Trump was “furious, disgusted” by Bannon’s remarks about his son, calling the claims “outrageous” and “completely false.”
Bannon, reached by Bloomberg News, declined to comment on the remarks published by the Guardian. Two people close to him said he wasn’t bothered by the president’s statement. They asked not to be identified discussing Bannon’s reaction.
New York Magazine also published an article by Wolff on Wednesday, based on the book, that recounts a conversation between Bannon and former Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes in which the two men debated whether Trump understood the importance of his election.
“‘Does he get it?’ asked Ailes suddenly, looking intently at Bannon. Did Trump get where history had put him?” Wolff wrote. “Bannon took a sip of water. ‘He gets it,’ he said, after hesitating for perhaps a beat too long. ‘Or he gets what he gets.”’
My temptation to giggle at the faux outrage aside. This will have some far reaching consequences and I explain this in my video commentary below:
Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter that has been much on my mind, at a moment when it seems that our democracy is more defined by our discord and our dysfunction than it is by our values and our principles. Let me begin by noting a somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours to hold indefinitely. We are not here simply to mark time. Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office. And there are times when we must risk our careers in favor of our principles.
Now is such a time.
It must also be said that I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret, because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics, regret because of the indecency of our discourse, regret because of the coarseness of our leadership, regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by our — all of our — complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end.
In this century, a new phrase has entered the language to describe the accommodation of a new and undesirable order — that phrase being “the new normal.” But we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue — with the tone set at the top.
We must never regard as “normal” the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country – the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth or decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have all been elected to serve.
None of these appalling features of our current politics should ever be regarded as normal. We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking that this is just the way things are now. If we simply become inured to this condition, thinking that this is just politics as usual, then heaven help us. Without fear of the consequences, and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal.
Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as “telling it like it is,” when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified.
And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else: It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength — because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit, and weakness.
It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us, Why didn’t you do something? Why didn’t you speak up? — what are we going to say?
Mr. President, I rise today to say: Enough. We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes normal. With respect and humility, I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it. We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that.
Here, today, I stand to say that we would better serve the country and better fulfill our obligations under the constitution by adhering to our Article 1 “old normal” — Mr. Madison’s doctrine of the separation of powers. This genius innovation which affirms Madison’s status as a true visionary and for which Madison argued in Federalist 51 — held that the equal branches of our government would balance and counteract each other when necessary. “Ambition counteracts ambition,” he wrote.
But what happens if ambition fails to counteract ambition? What happens if stability fails to assert itself in the face of chaos and instability? If decency fails to call out indecency? Were the shoe on the other foot, would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats? Of course not, and we would be wrong if we did.
When we remain silent and fail to act when we know that that silence and inaction is the wrong thing to do — because of political considerations, because we might make enemies, because we might alienate the base, because we might provoke a primary challenge, because ad infinitum, ad nauseum — when we succumb to those considerations in spite of what should be greater considerations and imperatives in defense of the institutions of our liberty, then we dishonor our principles and forsake our obligations. Those things are far more important than politics.
Now, I am aware that more politically savvy people than I caution against such talk. I am aware that a segment of my party believes that anything short of complete and unquestioning loyalty to a president who belongs to my party is unacceptable and suspect.
If I have been critical, it not because I relish criticizing the behavior of the president of the United States. If I have been critical, it is because I believe that it is my obligation to do so, as a matter of duty and conscience. The notion that one should stay silent as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters – the notion that one should say and do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided.
A Republican president named Roosevelt had this to say about the president and a citizen’s relationship to the office:
“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.” President Roosevelt continued. “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Acting on conscience and principle is the manner in which we express our moral selves, and as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party. We can all be forgiven for failing in that measure from time to time. I certainly put myself at the top of the list of those who fall short in that regard. I am holier-than-none. But too often, we rush not to salvage principle but to forgive and excuse our failures so that we might accommodate them and go right on failing—until the accommodation itself becomes our principle.
In that way and over time, we can justify almost any behavior and sacrifice almost any principle. I’m afraid that is where we now find ourselves.
When a leader correctly identifies real hurt and insecurity in our country and instead of addressing it goes looking for somebody to blame, there is perhaps nothing more devastating to a pluralistic society. Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to first look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops. Humility helps. Character counts. Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly and debased appetites in us.
Leadership lives by the American creed: E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. American leadership looks to the world, and just as Lincoln did, sees the family of man. Humanity is not a zero-sum game. When we have been at our most prosperous, we have also been at our most principled. And when we do well, the rest of the world also does well.
These articles of civic faith have been central to the American identity for as long as we have all been alive. They are our birthright and our obligation. We must guard them jealously, and pass them on for as long as the calendar has days. To betray them, or to be unserious in their defense is a betrayal of the fundamental obligations of American leadership. And to behave as if they don’t matter is simply not who we are.
Now, the efficacy of American leadership around the globe has come into question. When the United States emerged from World War II we contributed about half of the world’s economic activity. It would have been easy to secure our dominance, keeping the countries that had been defeated or greatly weakened during the war in their place. We didn’t do that. It would have been easy to focus inward. We resisted those impulses. Instead, we financed reconstruction of shattered countries and created international organizations and institutions that have helped provide security and foster prosperity around the world for more than 70 years.
Now, it seems that we, the architects of this visionary rules-based world order that has brought so much freedom and prosperity, are the ones most eager to abandon it.
The implications of this abandonment are profound. And the beneficiaries of this rather radical departure in the American approach to the world are the ideological enemies of our values. Despotism loves a vacuum. And our allies are now looking elsewhere for leadership. Why are they doing this? None of this is normal. And what do we as United States Senators have to say about it?
The principles that underlie our politics, the values of our founding, are too vital to our identity and to our survival to allow them to be compromised by the requirements of politics. Because politics can make us silent when we should speak, and silence can equal complicity.
I have children and grandchildren to answer to, and so, Mr. President, I will not be complicit.
I have decided that I will be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself from the political considerations that consume far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles.
To that end, I am announcing today that my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019.
It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, and who is pro-immigration, has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican party — the party that for so long has defined itself by belief in those things. It is also clear to me for the moment we have given in or given up on those core principles in favor of the more viscerally satisfying anger and resentment. To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess we have created are justified. But anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.
There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal — but mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people. In the case of the Republican party, those things also threaten to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking minority party.
We were not made great as a country by indulging or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorying in the things which divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake. And we did not become the beacon of freedom in the darkest corners of the world by flouting our institutions and failing to understand just how hard-won and vulnerable they are.
This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say the sooner the better. Because to have a heathy government we must have healthy and functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity and good faith. We must argue our positions fervently, and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our fellow man, and always look for the good. Until that days comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if our country depends on it. Because it does.
I plan to spend the remaining fourteen months of my senate term doing just that.
Mr. President, the graveyard is full of indispensable men and women — none of us here is indispensable. Nor were even the great figures from history who toiled at these very desks in this very chamber to shape this country that we have inherited. What is indispensable are the values that they consecrated in Philadelphia and in this place, values which have endured and will endure for so long as men and women wish to remain free. What is indispensable is what we do here in defense of those values. A political career doesn’t mean much if we are complicit in undermining those values.
I thank my colleagues for indulging me here today, and will close by borrowing the words of President Lincoln, who knew more about healing enmity and preserving our founding values than any other American who has ever lived. His words from his first inaugural were a prayer in his time, and are no less so in ours:
“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
Is this nutty idea that The President should be able to cancel the broadcast licenses of those in the press that he disagrees with. This is crazy talk and smacks of Hitler.
Here’s a snippet of the story and commentary from HotAir.com:
Yet, there are also plenty of conservatives and libertarian who have criticized Trump for his attack on the MSM. AP and Ed both wrote Trump was wrong in his challenge to the First Amendment. Katherine Timpf at National Review went even further, (correctly) using the “f-word,” as in fascism, in her condemnation.
Let me be clear: Calling for government control of the media is not a conservative view; it’s a fascist one. You’re fine to think that the government should control the media; you’re fine to espouse it — thanks, of course, to the First Amendment that you’re apparently totally fine with jeopardizing — but please understand that this idea is not compatible with conservative, or even traditionally American, values.
There’s no doubt the MSM has raised the dander of conservatives and libertarians, and for good reason. The newscaster plenty of people cite as an example of fair news, Walter Cronkite, wasn’t fair at all. Douglas Brinkley’s book Cronkite, written with participation from the ex-CBS News anchor’s family, showed Cronkite wasn’t biased, especially to Barry Goldwater. There’s also the stupidity of Dan Rather, who pushed the idea ex-President George W. Bush figured out a way to skip out on his service in the National Guard.
These are examples of biased press, and should cause people pause. It’s totally okay if someone decides to find another source for a story because it was written by an outlet which may or may not give someone a fair shot. That’s up to individuals, not the government. Yet, biased press is very much protected by the First Amendment. In fact, biased press is free press, whether it makes conservatives, libertarians, liberals, or socialists happy or furious. Federalists and Anti-Federalists used the press to put out their opinions on whether the Constitution should be approved. Jeffersonians used the press to get their viewpoints out to the masses.
It’s also important to remember it’s not just “conservatives” who have had issues with the press. California Senator Dianne Feinstein suggested only “real reporters” deserved to be protected in a 2013 media shield law (which should just be the First Amendment, but I digress). Her amendment thankfully failed.
But it shows both parties have issues with outlets which don’t give them favorable press, and there are politicians in both parties who want to see the press restricted. All political ideologies, especially those who believe in freedom and liberty, should reject this wholeheartedly.
If President Donald Trump thinks that he can control the media; he is very highly mistaken. I voted for this man; to tackle trade, secure the boarder and straighten out our fiscal mess. I did NOT vote for a fascist. This whole idea smacks of the German Nazi nonsense of the 1940’s and it needs to be stood up to and stopped.
This is America and here, we do not control the press, ever. End of Discussion.
One source told Page Six, “Deidre has left him and has filed for divorce. She liked the nice Wall Street life and their home on Long Island, not the insane world of D.C. She is tired of his naked ambition, which is so enormous that it left her at her wits’ end. She has left him even though they have two children together.”
Scaramucci and Ball, 38, began dating in 2011 and are believed to have married in 2014.
The source said that the Wall Street financier, 52, had been “hell-bent” on claiming his position at the White House after he was originally pegged for a senior role and sold SkyBridge Capital in preparation in January.
Whatever happened to staying by your man, no matter what?
WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.
But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. At one point last summer, Mr. Trump said at a campaign event that he hoped Russian intelligence services had stolen Hillary Clinton’s emails and would make them public.
The officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other associates of Mr. Trump. On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the government outside of the intelligence services, they said. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified.
Here is my prediction as to what will happen to the Trump Administration:
It’s not just Hannity among the conservative A-list who’s grumbling about the tortoise pace of legislative action. Some House conservatives, like Jim Jordan, have complained about it recently and Matt Drudge, a Trump superfan, chimed in on Twitter a few days ago demanding to know what the hold-up is on O-Care and tax reform. All of which is excellent populist fodder: You can’t go wrong reassuring a restive grassroots audience that Congress is a bunch of gutless layabouts, especially if you’re a fan of the president and looking to condition the public to give him more power.
AP explains things a bit:
But this is more complicated than it looks. For one thing, the Senate GOP is jammed up right now by Democratic tactics to slow-walk Trump’s cabinet nominees. That’s resolving itself hour by hour as the time for debate on each nominee expires, but getting Trump’s secretaries in place is a top priority at the moment. For another thing, it’s not just Republicans in Congress who are urging patience among the base in moving their agenda, especially when it comes to ObamaCare. Hannity being Hannity, this monologue is a full-throated defense of Trump as a man of action and condemnation of the dithering Ryan-led Republicans in Congress as cowards who are blowing an opportunity — but it was Trump, not Ryan, who warned Americans last Sunday that the repeal-and-replace process might take until 2018. It’s Trump, not Ryan, who has pointedly held off on undoing Obama’s executive amnesties, much to the dismay of border hawks like Steve King. It’s Trump, not Ryan, who prioritized the travel ban as his first big policy fight rather than tax reform. Of course it’s true that Trump has acted more boldly thus far than Ryan and McConnell have in securing gains for the party, but that’s due to the nature of the two branches. All the president needs to do to make something happen in the executive branch is to grab a pen. Making something happen in the legislative branch takes time. As it was supposed to.
It also requires 60 votes in the Senate (at least for now), and therein lies a major problem. The Senate GOP can avoid a filibuster by using reconciliation to repeal chunks of ObamaCare, like the mandate — but it can’t repeal all of it. Importantly, it probably can’t repeal the regulations that require insurers to provide coverage to people with preexisting conditions, a main driver of costs under the program. It’ll probably take 60 votes for that, which creates a dilemma for Republicans: Do they really want to risk eliminating the mandate, the key revenue mechanism under the law, via reconciliation knowing that they can’t eliminate the main expenditure provision at the same time? That’s a recipe for a death spiral, which would mean lots and lots and lots of dropped coverage and lots and lots and lots of angry voters. Trump seems to understand that, that there aren’t 60 votes for a plan to avert that death spiral — at the moment — which is why he’s looking to 2018. Why is it the fault of congressional Republicans that they don’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?
….and on Taxes:
The Bush tax cuts were enacted via reconciliation, you’ll recall, and were also subject to a 10-year sunset provision. Because of that, the top income tax bracket reverted to its pre-Bush levels in 2012. If you want this year’s tax reforms to be permanent rather than limited by another 10-year sunset and another big congressional standoff circa 2027, you need Democratic cooperation. That means 60 votes, and most Senate Dems are in no mood to provide those votes right now — but they might be eventually, especially since there’s bipartisan consensus on certain key issues (like lowering corporate taxes). As the midterms bear down on red-state Dems like Joe Manchin, they might be willing to compromise with the Great Negotiator in the White House and produce a package that can be passed cleanly in Congress, enshrining Trump’s tax program as permanent law. But that’ll take time, and Hannity and other populists are unwilling to wait.
Here’s an idea. If Trump wants to speed things along in the legislature so that he isn’t stuck fighting court battles over executive orders, he could try being a bit less antagonistic to legislators on the other side, like mocking Chuck Schumer for tearing up over refugees, and searching for areas on which the parties might compromise, to build trust. (And in fact, he might be doing just that.) It may not work despite his best efforts — the left craves a “resist at all costs!” approach to Trump, which is too bad and about which there isn’t much the White House can do. But he can do what he can do on his end. It can only help Ryan and McConnell to pick up the pace if he’s more conciliatory with critics.
Needless to say, the GOP congress is going to have their hands full for the next 4 years. When they are not defending themselves from attacks from Democrats, they will be having to fend off attacks from the Conservative media. It is going to be a long, hard four years.
President Trump’s official counselor, Kellyanne Conway, was “counseled” after she told TV audiences to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff,” the White House said Thursday.
Legal experts said Conway had broken a key ethics law banning federal employees from using their public office to endorse products. White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday that Conway “has been counseled,” but offered no other comment.
Conway, speaking to “Fox & Friends” viewers from the White House briefing room, was responding to boycotts of Ivanka Trump merchandise and Nordstrom’s discontinuation of stocking her clothing and shoe lines, which the retailer said was in response to low sales and which the president assailed as unfair.
“I’m going to give it a free commercial here,” Conway said of the president’s daughter’s merchandise brand. “Go buy it today.”
Conway and officials from the Office of Government Ethics did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said Conway’s endorsement was ”clearly over the line” and “unacceptable.”
Earlier in the day, the committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), had urged Chaffetz to support a review into what he called “a textbook violation of government ethics laws.”
Trump might be a good leader and is going to be a excellent President. But, he has surrounded himself with a bunch of utter buffoons. This woman needs to be fired and I mean quick.
I saw this today at HotAir.com and I could not help but think that if this was a Democrat presidential adviser, the conservative media would be roasting her for it.
Now, what I am about to say, is not going to be political correct. But, Mrs. Conway; stop bitching and whining about the fact that not everyone is going to like your boss or even worse, you or resign your position of Presidential Advisor. Because I, for one, did not vote for some shrieking harpy to sit and whine about how the “mean old liberal media”, is treating you badly. It comes with the territory. Dana Perino who served as Bush’s press secretary, faced a hostile crowd too and never once did you ever hear her complain about it, ever.
I think it is high time that President Trump took control of his White House, cleaned house and put some people in there with some backbone and get rid of the damned whiners.
We owe President Trump the benefit of the doubt. For Christians who supported his candidacy, this imperative can be taken for granted. But for others of us who did not support his candidacy, this imperative is a necessary reminder.
During the election cycle, we opposed Mr. Trump’s nomination and candidacy for a variety of reasons, including reservations about his ideological framework, policy stances, temperament, and rhetoric. Yet Mr. Trump was victorious, and after his inauguration, our pride might be tempted to justify our pre-inaugural opposition. It may be easy to interpret his post-inaugural words and works in a worse light than the evidence demands and, in doing so, say “See, I told you so.”
But we owe it to President Trump and to our fellow citizens to hope that he does well, to give him the benefit of the doubt, to affirm him and his Cabinet when they do well for our nation. We owe it to President Trump because he is our President, and one of the Bible’s few political imperatives is to give leaders the respect that is due to their office (Rom 13:1-7). We also owe it to our fellow citizens not to perpetuate the dishonest, disrespectful, and even toxic nature of this year’s political discourse.
He also writes:
We owe President Trump our honest criticism. Christians who opposed his candidacy will probably have no trouble recognizing the merits of this imperative. At the same time, Christians who cheered his candidacy might be tempted to ignore it, to their own detriment and to the detriment of our nation.
Our nation’s political discourse has broken down, in part, because many citizens and commentators have given up on politics. They’ve given up on the idea of politics as a bipartisan attempt to achieve the common good. In the place of it, they’ve embraced a winner-takes-all mentality that demonizes the opposition and lionizes one’s own party or candidate. Pro-Trumpers could be be lured into embracing everything Trump does, and agree with everything he says.
Just as the kings of Egypt and Persia needed Joseph and Daniel to speak hard truths to them (Gen 41; Dan 2), so President Trump needs us to speak our minds with honest criticism. The Proverbs remind us that we should speak the truth, even when the truth hurts, and that our truth-telling will bring healing (Prov 12:16-18). Because we are Christians who are committed to truth, and because we are citizens of a democratic republic in which we are encouraged to speak up for the common good, we owe him our honest criticism.
I believe this to be very much true; this blog exists for that purpose. I do not intend this blog to be a Trump defense site at all. I have blogged since 2006. I began as a left of center blogger; and ended up where I am now. I started blogging, because I was very unhappy at the way President Bush was managing with Iraq War back then. I was not then, nor am I now, a partisan blogger. I do not allow my political opinions to be swayed by emotion or by popular trends. I am man of principles. Some might disagree with those principles; but I do intend to stick to them, whether I have many hits on this blog or none. I will be compromise my principles for the sake of being popular.
Let me also add that we can criticize the President, without being personal about it and without the gutter sniping. I did criticize President Obama and Bush. But, I never said a WORD about their wives or their Children. There are bloggers who do this; and it is immoral. Just as well, if I have something to write about Trump, when I disagree with his actions; I will keep that criticism about policy, never about the man.
Most importantly ALL Christians of all stripes should be doing this:
For those of us who are interested in our nation’s politics, it’s easy to forget the importance of prayer. Ask yourself: when is the last time you prayed for President Obama, or for members of Congress? When is the last time you prayed for Mr. Trump or his incoming Cabinet? For many of us the answer is, “not very often” or “never.”
But the Bible is clear that Christians should seek God’s guidance for those in authority. The apostle Paul wrote to his protégé, Timothy, “Therefore I exhort first of all that all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (1 Tim 2:1-2). That’s a direct command, one of the few clear imperatives the Bible gives us concerning government and politics.
We should be careful not to get so caught up in discussion and debate that we forget to appeal to the King who rules over the world’s rulers. “A king’s heart is like streams of water in the Lord’s hand: he directs it wherever He chooses” (Prov 22:1). Rather than trusting in a new President or in an opposing political party, we should be trusting the One in whose hands they govern.
I think sometimes it is easy to forget that God puts leaders in their place for a reason. It is the duty of the Christian believer to keep those leaders in our prayers, at all times; whether we agree with them or not.
President Donald Trump’s iaugural speech promised “America first” policy led by a forceful executive, in contrast to the coalition building and international conferences which have featured strongly in past administrations.
The billionaire businessman and reality television star — the first president who had never held political office or high military rank — promised to stir a “new national pride” and protect America from the “ravages” of countries he says have stolen U.S. jobs.
“This American carnage stops right here,” Trump declared. In a warning to the world, he said, “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America first.”
Of course, around the world the reactions are of utter horror. This is because America’s hand been out feeding the rest of the world, instead of taking care of ourselves, for far too long.
Consider some of these examples:
SPEECH RESONATES IN MEXICO
Perhaps no country was watching the speech more closely than Mexico. Trump has made disparaging remarks about immigrants who come to the United States illegally and sought to pressure companies not to set up shop in Mexico by threatening a border tariff on goods manufactured there and exported to the United States.
So Trump’s talk of “protect(ing) our borders,” ”America first” and “buy American and hire American” had particular resonance in America’s southern neighbor.
Ricardo Anaya Cortes, president of the conservative opposition National Action Party, called for “the unity of all Mexicans, unity in the face of this protectionist, demagogic and populist speech we just heard. Unity against that useless wall, against deportations, against the blockade of investment.”
“The challenge is enormous. … We demand the federal government leave aside tepidity, that it tackle with absolute firmness and dignity the new relationship with the United States,” Anaya said.
The United States is by far Mexico’s largest commercial partner, buying some 80 percent of its $532 billion in exports in 2015. Mexico is the second-largest market for U.S. exports.
“At least the word ‘Mexico’ was not heard in the speech. Nevertheless one can expect the United States to launch a hyper-protectionist project,” said Ilan Semo Groman, a researcher at Iberoamericana University.
If Trump truly moves to block or drive away U.S. investment in Mexico, Semo said Mexico should focus its commercial efforts on other countries.
“There are very clear possibilities,” Semo said.
Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto sent three tweets after Trump’s inaugural speech Friday:
— “I congratulate @realDonaldTrump on his inauguration. We will work to strengthen our relationship with shared responsibility.”
— “We will establish a respectful dialogue with the government of President @realDonaldTrump, to Mexico’s benefit.”
— “Sovereignty, national interest and the protection of Mexicans will guide the relationship with the new government of the United States.”
___
CONCERN IN TOKYO
Some Tokyo residents are worried that Trump’s “America first” policy will usher in an era of populism and protectionism at the expense of the rest of the world.
Tadashi Gomibuchi, who works in the manufacturing industry, recorded Trump’s inauguration speech overnight as he was keen to hear what the new president had to say.
“Trump is trying to make big changes to the way things are. Changes are good sometimes, but when America, the most powerful, loses stability … it’s a grave concern,” he said. “If you take his words literally, it may destabilize the world going forward and I’m really worried. I hope things will lead to a soft landing.”
Retiree Kuninobu Inoue, who lived in the U.S. during the 1990s, is concerned about trade frictions between Japan and the U.S, citing Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 12-nation Trans Pacific Partnership.
“Japan-U.S. relations are not just about security. Our good relations rely so much on trade,” he said.
Protectionist policies such as the withdrawal from TPP and renegotiation of NAFTA will have a negative impact on the global economy including Japan’s, said Akio Mimura, head of the Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
“These policies only enhance protectionist and populist movement spreading around the world, and could largely shake the free trade system that has supported global growth,” he said.
In his congratulatory message to Trump, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stressed the importance of the Asia-Pacific region as a source for growth but also tensions.
“In the 21st century, while the Asia-Pacific region is the source of the global economic growth, the security environment of the region is becoming more severe,” he said.
___
CHINA BRACES FOR TROUBLE AHEAD
A Chinese state-run nationalist tabloid, the Global Times, says President Trump’s inauguration speech indicates that the U.S. and China would inevitably face trade tensions.
The newspaper said in a Saturday commentary following Trump’s inauguration that “dramatic changes” lay ahead for the U.S. and the global economic order.
“Undoubtedly, the Trump administration will be igniting many ‘fires’ on its front door and around the world. Let’s wait and see when it will be China’s turn,” it said.
The paper noted that Trump blamed foreign trade policies for failing to put “America first,” and said trade tensions between the U.S. and China seemed “inevitable within the four years ahead.”
The paper says it expects that the Trump administration, in seeking to bring factories back to the U.S. from China, will use the U.S. government’s relations with Taiwan as “merely a bargaining chip for them to put trade pressure on China.”
In Beijing, Independent scholar and commentator Zhang Lifan drew a contrast between Trump’s focus on domestic issues and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s emphasis on international cooperation.
“The new U.S. administration’s policy toward China is not clear now. In my view, Trump will deal with China like a businessman, especially on trade negotiations,” Zhang said.
___
Again, these countries that I quoted; are ones that have stolen our jobs, robbing us of our manufacturing base, by the importation of their products on the cheap…instead of having to actually pay to put bring them into this country. Of course they’re going to be threatened. So, it should be interesting to see what goes on under a trump administration. Because I truly believe that these so-called trading partners, that we have, are going to feel the pinch once Trump gets in there and begins to renegotiate the trade agreements, that we have with these countries. Quite frankly, it’s about time that they started paying their share, for taking our jobs and bringing their products into our country.
Of course, I find it kind of humorous that the hand-wringing that is going on in those countries and here at home as well. There are some who are acting like Donald Trump is the 21st century incarnation of Adolf Hitler, which is laughable at best; because we have too many safeguards in our country, to prevent something happening here, like what happened in Germany in the 1930’s.
Needless to say, the next 4 to 8 years, is going to be very interesting in this country and I look forward to covering it here on this blog. I am proud to say that I voted for Donald Trump and I’m also going to take great pleasure in taking down the liberal-left narrative on this blog. I’m not necessarily a Donald Trump propagandist; not by a long shot. Because I don’t do Party politics and I’m not a partisan. However, I am someone who stands by a set of principles that I strongly believe in…and as a result I will praise Donald Trump when it is needed and I will also criticize him, when I feel it is warranted. But, I will write against any sort of false narrative that’s being pushed about our president.
There are some on the right that compare the left’s derangement about Donald Trump, to that derangement, that was aimed at George W Bush. Let me say this as someone who used to be on that side of the fence; this is much much worse with George W Bush there was a war that many on the left, felt was unjustified and in some cases illegal. This is none of that; this is derangement against a man, who was put in office by the Electoral College; which was totally legal and constitutional and he was elected by the majority of the American people.
This derangement that comes is basically because he is white, because he is wealthy and because he is a Republican. That’s all it is, there is nothing else of substance that has people against Donald Trump. It’s simply is because he is a wealthy white man and the Democrats are feeling butthurt, because their candidate a rich white woman lost sure she got the popular vote; which can be tampered with, by the way, but the Electoral College does not lie… American conservatives came out and voted for Donald Trump and he won and the Democrats are powerless to stop that, he has committed no crime, therefore they cannot impeach him as much as the Democrats would like to. So, this derangement is worse than George W Bush’s derangement syndrome of the left. This is just simply an unprincipled derangement and it will come back to haunt the Democrats let me assure you of that.
