By Brett Matthew West
(This is an editorial)
Attending the inauguration of a new President has historically been viewed as a distinct privilege, as well as a bipartisan event. Then along comes January 20, 2017 and The Donald.
This singular event has left politicians, celebrities, and members of the American public debating whether or not they will participate in his inauguration. Many people find themselves torn between deciding if Trump's swearing-in ceremony shows support for him or is a mere tribute to democratic traditions.
For example, Bill, and even Hillary Clinton, who Trump defeated in the 2016 Presidential Election, have decided to attend the inauguration. On the other hand, members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir are divided after the choir chose to perform at the ceremony. As are some Radio City Rockettes, and certain members of the Talladega College Marching Band, who are also slated to perform at the event.
Fortunately for the 30-student Pride of Madawaska Marching Band of Maine, that consists of 7th to 12th graders, they will have the opportunity to perform at the Lincoln Memorial. This band does not view the politics surrounding the inauguration, only the experience of a lifetime the situation presents the young musicians.
At the same time, many Hollywood A-Listers, the glory-seeking hounds that they are, have decided to boycott the inauguration, and according to Trump, he is okay with their decision as he tweeted back in December:
"The so-called "A" list celebrities are all wanting tixs to the inauguration, but look what they did for Hillary, NOTHING. I want the PEOPLE!"
Probably no inauguration before this one has ever experienced the divisiveness caused by Trump's winning the election. People are clearly drawing lines in the sand over whether to attend this event or not.
Robert Reich, a one-time Bill Clinton administration official, seemed to sum the feelings of the masses up in his tweet, "The underlying issue here isn't the normal and noble desire to overcome partisanship and promote a peaceful transition of power."
He is correct about his assessment. The issue appears to be, that for better or for worse, Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States. And, that is what most people can not seem to wrap their minds around.
So, the question remains: should we or shouldn't we attend his inauguration?
And, the answer is?
| Author Notes |
Future chapters will discuss ethics, issues facing The Donald as President, and much more. So, stay tuned!
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to include them in your reviews. As American citizens we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
(This is an Editorial)
In one of the most shocking results of any Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton, the odds-on favorite, was narrowly defeated by Donald Trump. On second thought, were the results of this election all that surprising? Peeling back the underlying layers, we can see Hillary Clinton lost her latest bid for the Presidency of the United States because of one main reason.
According to a US intelligence report, Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized cyber-hacking of the 2016 Presidential Election in an alleged effort to assist Donald Trump. However, The Donald has consistently denied being helped by the Soviet Union. And, although they do not blame the cyber-hacking for Hillary Clinton losing the election, the Democratic Party insists the effects were clearly evident.
John Weaver, the ex-Chief Strategist for Ohio Governor John Kasich, stated, "We know it {the cyber-hacking} put Clinton's campaign on the defensive. We know that it distracted that campaign and we know, anecdotally, that it impacted voters."
Hillary Clinton aides chalk her losing the election up to:
1 - the Russian hacks added fuel to the fire of American voters' concerns about Clinton's use of a personal email account as the Secretary of State, and,
2 - what's this? The American voting public's distrust of Hillary Clinton
One of the courses the Russians allegedly followed in their hacking was to post the YouTube video known as "Trump Will Not Be Permitted To Win," that featured the fugitive WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange, and garnered 2.2 million views.
Located outside St. Petersburg, Florida, US intelligence officials claim the Internet Research Agency, that is led by a Putin ally, flooded social media. This organization is highly regarded by US intelligence sources as nothing more than "professional trolls".
After Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida was forced out of her position as the Chairwoman for the Democratic National Committee, an act that occurred following several emails being provided to WikiLeaks, proving the supposedly neutral Committee backed Clinton over Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in the primaries, Donald Trump received the ammunition to detail the case that the electoral system was rigged in Clinton's favor.
Another undesirable situation arose when Donna Brazile, an ex-CNN Commentator, briefed the Clinton team before a televised candidates' forum and debate. This incident led to the American public's idea that Clinton was a Washington insider and reinforced their notion Clinton was untrustworthy. Now, why would they believe such a thing?
So, although the Russians, no doubt, hacked the 2016 Presidential Election, as they did in 2008 and 2012, their efforts were not the cause of Hillary Clinton losing the Presidency. Nor was it any of the excuses the Democrats have listed above that cost Clinton the election. It was the simple fact that she proved to be untrustworthy that ended her White House aspirations.
| Author Notes |
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to include them in your reviews.
As American citizens we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
Did any of you see the Yahoo headline that screamed, "Trump tweet prompts ethics warning"? This story derided The Donald's endorsing LL Bean's products. It also led to the Office of Government Ethics warning federal employees not to endorse products.
Another fallout was fanatical activists demanding LL Bean be boycotted after it was disclosed Linda Bean, a member of the family that owns the apparel company, contributed to Trump's campaign.
Are you aware that Trump was perfectly within his rights to do what he did?
Did you also know that ethics rules for government employees do not apply to the President? And that is any American President, not just The Donald.
I can hear some of you now, "SAY WHAT!" I'll retouch on that point momentarily, but first, let's look at something else right now.
At his news conference on Wednesday, January 11, 2017, The Donald told attendees he does not believe the American public cares about his business dealings. What they are more interested in is what he will do for them as the President. A valid point not to be taken lightly.
He also stated he would not sell his company. This comment indicated his administration will, undoubtedly, face questions about potential conflicts between his private interests and his public responsibilities.
This point was hammered home when The Donald remarked, "I could actually run my business and government at the same time. I don't like the way that looks, but I would be able to do that if I wanted to." And, legally he could.
Foreign and domestic business holdings The Donald possesses include a golf resort in Scotland, real estate in Dubai, a hotel in Washington, D.C. that is located right down the street from the White House, an assortment of office buildings, and many others. More than five hundred in all.
What The Donald intends to create is a Trust, and allow his sons Eric and Donald, Junior, to run the Trump Organization. Upon the completion of his Presidency, Trump will then return to the helm of his business empire. He also will not conduct any foreign deals while he holds the Oval Office.
Preferring divestiture from The Donald, Walter Schaub, Junior, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, remarked, "Although the main federal laws on conflicts do not apply to the President, that doesn't mean no conflicts will occur."
Schaub further elaborated, "For that reason, it's been the consistent policy of the Executive Branch that the President should act as though the financial conflict of interest law applied. {For Trump to} step back from running his business is meaningless, from a conflict of interest perspective."
Another recent issue facing The Donald that has seen a lot of coverage is the preconceived notion of the Russians unsubstantiated relationship with Trump. Particularly in question is a 35-page document posted by BuzzFeed that allegedly claims the Russians have information on Trump they could blackmail him with.
The thing to remember about this incident is that we can not allow unproven comments to become cheap attacks against any person simply because an organization such as BuzzFeed feels that gossip, false allegations, and innuendos are the proper course to follow.
In an attempt to defend their actions, BuzzFeed is on the record as claiming that because high-level government officials read their unverified information the general public should have access to it as well. This is the kind of attitude that is so damaging to the fabric of the United States. But, are they correct?
Or, is the proper answer, as Bill O'Reilly stated on the latest edition of his Talking Points, "Facts should be reported, baseless allegations should not unless credible evidence is presented."
That brings us back to the question of ethics. Who's are right: BuzzFeed? Bill O'Reilly? Walter Schaub, Junior? Or, perhaps The Donald?
| Author Notes |
The recognized most powerful man in the world is the President of the United States.
Among many traits he must possess are ethics. No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to include them in your reviews. As American citizens we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
Walter M. Schaub, Jr., the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, has stated his concerns that President-Elect Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees have not completed ethics reviews prior to their confirmation hearings being scheduled.
In his letter to Democratic Senators, Schaub also stated Republicans are attempting to hold hearings for nominated Cabinet members before paperwork is completed to insure there are no criminal, ethical, or financial issues involved with these nominees.
Among the nominees in question are Billionaire Betsy DeVos, who is nominated for Education Secretary, Rex Tillerson, who is nominated for Secretary of State, and Senator Jeff Sessions, who is nominated for Attorney General. Some Democrats have negatively labeled Trump's nominees as "a bunch of billionaires".
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer of New York stated the Republican attempt to rush Trump's nominees' confirmations "makes crystal-clear that the Transition Team's collusion with Senate Republicans to jam through these Cabinet nominees before they've been thoroughly vetted is unprecedented."
Schumer also stated, "The Senate and the American people deserve to know that these Cabinet nominees have a plan to avoid any conflicts of interest, that they're working on behalf of the American people, and not their own bottom line, and that they plan to fully comply with the law."
All of which are valid points.
| Author Notes |
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about The Donald are, feel free to include them in your reviews.
As American citizens we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
Donald Trump ramped up his heated war with the US intelligence community, and accused their leaking an unsubstantiated report about him to tactics employed by the German Nazis.
Finally conceding that Russia hacked Democratic files in an effort to alter the 2016 Presidential Election, and try to help him win the Presidency, The Donald praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and stated the Soviet hacking operation actually helped American voters. Is he nuts! Or, is he spot on?
That was just one of the bizarre moments at Trump's news conference. The Donald also addressed comments towards the media, his largest campaign promises, and how his business conflicts could peacefully coincide with his position as the President.
Trump Tower in New York City was the location for the news conference, and the lobby of that tower was where The Donald detailed how he was going to turn over the operations of more than five hundred, (yes, that number is correct!), of his corporations to his sons Eric and Donald, Junior.
However, he would not eliminate the possibilities of contacts between his business associates and Russian intelligence agents. He also struck out at allegations the Russians had unverified information they could blackmail him with, as was released in a file by BuzzFeed.
The Donald stated, "{It was} sick people who put that crap together. It was disgraceful-disgraceful that the intelligence agencies allowed any information that turned out to be so false and fake out."
Trump further said, "If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks? That's called an asset, not a liability."
He then added, "I hope I do {get along well with the Russians}. But, there's a good chance I won't. And if I don't, do you honestly believe that Hillary would be tougher on Putin than me? Does anybody in this room really believe that? Give me a break!"
On a lighter note, The Donald also remarked, "Moscow can help us fight the Islamic State".
The CIA anticipates a full steam ahead confrontation with Trump upon his ascending into the White House. Mark my words, it is going to happen. And, for his part, The Donald has stated he wants a ninety-day review of cyber defense for the US upon his assuming office.
It seems the battle lines between the President-Elect and the Central Intelligence Agency are just beginning to fester. Stay tuned for future updates. I am sure I will be bringing them to you "live and in techni-color," so to speak, as they occur.
| Author Notes |
The Donald's battles with the CIA appear to just be warming up.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to include them in your reviews. As American citizens we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
During the 2016 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised several things he planned to achieve. Among these were building a wall along the US border with Mexico, rebuilding American cities, deporting illegal immigrants, overhauling the tax code, and repealing Obamacare.
In three days The Donald will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States with high expectations, as well as a Presidency of vision and velocity. However, Trump's largest agenda items can not be advanced without consensus on Capitol Hill.
With a full legislative calendar, the Republicans in the Senate and the House appear to be moving swiftly to dismantle Barack Obama's legacy - Obamacare.
According to The Donald's lawyer Kellyanne Conway, "The Trump effect on Washington, D.C. is not going to be a fresh coat of paint on a rustic structure. It's going to be more of a gut renovation."
Trump's agenda, and his "deal-making strongman who can blow up the Washington establishment and better the lives of everyday Americans" persona is what sold him on the masses of voters who put him in office.
These were rank-and-file Americans who felt Trump was the last ditch effort to get the United States back on track. Because in their opinion, it was the liberals including Obama and Hillary Clinton, who decided what everyday Americans wanted, not the people themselves.
Areas in which Trump's administration sees the opportunity to unilaterally act include negotiating trade deals and the selection of a new US Supreme Court Justice. However, bipartisanship could also slow his momentum down to a crawl on such issues as immigration.
According to Phil Schiliro, a White House Legislative Affairs Director during Obama' first term, "{that's} just the nature of legislation, the way House and Senate Legislators work."
And, Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama chimed in, "He's {Trump} trying to exhort a molasses-like institution to act more quickly."
Patience might become a watchword The Donald may have to learn. But, can he really be held accountable for the speed of which the Republican-controlled House and Senate actually pass his legislation?
| Author Notes |
The Donald has always been a full-speed ahead, take charge, leader.
He has never worked for anybody else. Now, with 325,110,000 bosses, the approximate number of American people, give or take a few, will he have the tolerance to operate his agenda at the speed of Washington, that may not necessarily be his own? No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to include them in your reviews. As American citizens we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about Trump. Here I come to Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
Imagine recharging batteries by walking. How about examining a solar-powered drone and many other technological advances? These are everyday occurrences in the Modern US military.
Recently, they were also showcased by Marines as part of the Department of Defense's shift away from fossil fuels that keep America dependent on oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Sounds good, doesn't it?
Donald Trump has chosen a Cabinet full of climate change skeptics and wants to end policies that undermine producers of fossil fuels. That would terminate America's hybrid electric ships and increase the risk of American troops in areas of conflict.
Retired Marine General James Mattis, who The Donald has slated to become his Secretary of Defense, is a strong advocate of Green technology, although he has not officially stated what his position on purchasing alternative fuels for military ships and aircraft is.
In the past, Republican lawmakers have attacked many of the Green initiatives of one of the world's largest energy consumers, the Department of Defense. Their targets have mainly been the Navy's Great Green Fleet that operates its ships partially on biofuels.
As demonstrated at the showcase, with the aid of tiny generators connected to knee braces, a Marine produced energy from walking to recharge the batteries. Using this method, troops can generate their own energy for up to 72 hours.
Joe Bryan, the Navy's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, stated his expectations as to the future of these Green technologies by saying, "It would be shortsighted for the military not to address climate change."
A goal the US military has established in the Green arena is drawing half of its power from renewable energy by 2020, and the Defense Department wants to draw 25 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2025.
Colorado Republican Representative Ken Buck commented, "Our military should use the most cost-efficient fuel sources, rather than burning money on Green energy experiments."
The Obama Administration spent 120 billion dollars on climate change initiatives. However, the Republican consensus seems to be that US warships may leave port with a biofuel mix, but must still rely on foreign oil near battlefields. They also claim biofuels are more expensive than oil.
Where do you think military dollars should be spent? On a Green-sustaining military or on oil-producing countries that keep America over the barrel.
(Ready or not, tomorrow is Inauguration Day for The Donald. It's time to P-A-R-T-Y! Or not? This is just one of the countless issues he will face as the 45th President of the United States. All I can is, "God bless the USA and may we always remain free!" The next four years will be extremely interesting to say the least.)
| Author Notes |
Is a Green-sustaining military the best one for the United States or should we continue to be dependent on oil-producing countries that keep us over the barrel?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to include them in your reviews. As American citizens we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. |
By Brett Matthew West
The views expressed in this Editorial are clearly my own, although undoubtedly there are millions of others who wish they could say the same things, and had a soapbox to express their honest feelings on. I make no apologies for what I say.
The only right thing Barak Obama can truly say is GOODBYE!!!!!
Upon the words spewing out of his mouth, the most damaging President in the history of the United States needs to crawl back to Chicago, or Kenya (he is highly regarded as Kenya's Favorite Son), or whatever other earthen structure he unfortunately slithered out of eight years ago.
What he should have said in 2008 was, "Here's my birth certificate to prove I was born on American soil."
Instead, he never produced one. Why? Because he is not a native-born American as the US Constitution requires a person to be in order to hold the Presidency. That in itself should have been a red flag and made the Muslim unqualified to ever have been President. It should have also been grounds for Obama's immediate impeachment.
For 8 excruciatingly long years, Obama, as was his persona, did the only thing he could ever honestly do. He ran his mouth and emitted forth comments he believed Americans wanted to hear. You want proof? Here it is.
At his final news conference, Obama told a room full of reporters that, "Despite the worry felt by many of his fellow Democrats about the incoming Trump administration, we're going to be okay."
Now that Obama is moseying on down the long and winding road, and Is no longer a threat to the national security of the United States, or the wellbeing of American citizens, yes, this country will indeed be okay. That is something we all need to believe as we right the course this nation needs to follow.
Acknowledging a Trump-led America soon will be on course, Obama also said, "He is walking away with a sense of hopefulness about the country and where it is going."
Knowing the United States has had more than its belly full of him, Obama remarked, "He plans now to go into a period of quiet and not hear myself talk so darn much."
All Americans greatly anticipate that action on his part with baited breath.
Obama claims he will devote himself to writing and contemplation. What he needs to do is spend the rest of his life thinking about all the harm he did to this wonderful nation of ours.
Obama kept his focus on saying positive things about The Donald, going so far as to comment, "I think we're going to see people of merit rise up because that's America's strength."
At the end of his comments, Obama remarked, "At my core, I think we're {America is} going to be okay."
Being okay in terms of the United States' future, is for Obama to crawl back into whatever hole he appeared from 8 tremendously long, unfathomable, years ago. His history is definitely not one this great country EVER! needs to repeat again.
As Country Music Legend Merle Haggard once said, "When the President goes through the White House doors and does what he says he'll do, we'll all be drinking that free Bubble-Up and eating that rainbow stew."
Truer words were seldom spoken.
No, I am definitely not an Obama supporter. Never was. Never would be.
Am I a Trump supporter? Like everybody else, I can truthfully say time will answer that question for all of us.
And, from this day forward, we'd better hit our knees earnestly praying The Donald is a whole lot better than Obama ever was, or God help us, this country will go straight to Hell!
| Author Notes |
After 8 years of being the absolute worst mistake, and most dividing President the United States has ever had the misfortune of having, Barack Obama, Kenya's Favorite Son, is out of the Oval Office. Thank God!!!
It is alarming how much damage this individual caused the core fabric of the United States. It will take multi-generations of Presidents to undo all the harm Barack Obama created before he left office, with the lowest percentage of people in the history of this great country feeling like the fifty states are even united any more - 21 percent according to the latest Gallop poll. That in itself speaks volumes about the last 8 years under Kenya's Favorite Son, and does indeed make this: A VERY HAPPY INAUGUATION DAY FOR ALL! Can Donald Trump fix the multitude of problems Obama left behind in his wake? That is a tall order for anyone that only time will answer. No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to include them in your reviews. As American citizens we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
(This is an Editorial)
One of the main responsibilities of the Transportation Secretary is to regulate auto, truck, train, aviation, transit, and pipeline safety. A tall order in a country where a backlog of maintenance and repair projects are the norm.
Elaine Chao, Donald Trump's Transportation Secretary-Designate, stated the incoming administration is "Looking to unleash the potential of private investors to boost the nation's transportation networks that hamper the country's economy."
She also stated in testimony given before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, "Economic gains are being jeopardized by aging infrastructure, rising highway fatalities, growing congestion, and a failure to keep pace with emerging technologies."
The truth of that statement can be observed by looking at almost any major roadway, interstate, or avenue of heavy traffic anywhere in the United States.
Married to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Elaine Chao has previously served as the Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush. In that position, Chao was frequently criticized by unions for siding with industry when she enforced labor and safety rules. Chao also served as the Deputy Transportation Secretary under President George H.W. Bush.
Remarking, "Private investors should participate in repairing the aging US transportation system," Chao strongly encouraged them with, "a bold, new vision and innovative financing tools that can take full advantage of the estimated trillions in capital that equity firms, pension funds, and endowments can invest."
Chao provided no details about proposed incentives. However, a proposal from economic advisors to Donald Trump recommends offering 137 billion dollars in tax credits to infrastructure investors. They also advise transportation investors are apparently only interested in projects that provide revenue, such as toll roads, although there are only a small number of those projects available.
Another precaution that is needed to be taken is to eliminate tax incentives that create risks of providing windfalls to investors for projects that would have been constructed any way without their involvement in them.
Chao then talked about how the White House would determine issues such as enforcing a deadline for railroads to install train control systems capable of preventing collisions and derailments. She said the same about privatizing air traffic control operations. Both of these are "hot button" issues in the national transportation arena.
Having private citizens, corporations, and businesses invest in repairing and maintaining America's antiquated transportation systems, on the surface, sounds like a real good idea. But, when you peel away the underlying layers, is it?
| Author Notes |
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to include them in your reviews.
As American citizens we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected t compliment my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
Obamacare, the legacy of Barack Obama's eight-years-of-destruction Presidency of the United States, is Number One on the Republicans' Hit List. But, at what real cost to the American people?
Moreover, what do Republicans intend to replace Obamacare with? Donald Trump's great physique, good looks, and charm? That will not help Americans who need health insurance.
Even Republicans are sharply divided over whether or not to scrap the tax provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) at the same time they repeal the law, or keep them until a suitable GOP replacement has been established.
Here is the Republicans' dilemma. During the 2016 Presidential Election, American voters were promised every part of Obamacare would go immediately upon their taking office. What's that they say about be careful what you wish for?
This promise turned out to be nice rhetoric, when the reality may be that should the Republicans also eliminate the tax increases, and subsidies, contained in Obamacare that assist millions of US citizens with their health coverage, paying for a promised replacement plan could become politically impossible for the GOP to do.
So, knowing that, should the Republicans tread lightly especially knowing that if only three GOP Senators oppose the repeal it could actually be blocked? Keep in mind that most Congressional Republicans signed pledges not to raise taxes.
Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy explained, "The Obamacare taxes shouldn't be repealed up front, and instead should be replaced as part of a tax overhaul later this year in a separate reconciliation package that would pair fewer tax breaks with lower rates. There will be enough for people to win."
Some House Conservatives, including Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, empathetically countered with, "Repeal it, get rid of it, every single bit of it, don't keep any of it!"
Then he added, "That's all the taxes, all the mandates, all the things that are in this thing that the American people don't like and that I think have driven up the cost of medicine, {and} hurt economic growth."
Many rank-and-file Republicans oppose the delayed-replacement strategy of GOP leaders. They fear that a repeal measure of that nature would leave the majority of Obamacare in place, especially the tax hikes, so that millions of Americans don't lose their health coverage.
The Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, North Carolina Representative Mark Meadows, a fiscal conservative, chimed in, "A repeal needs to repeal. I believe {it} needs to be done immediately." (Meaning on the same day as a repeal vote)
He also believes a replacement health care Act should possess a revenue stream and a funding stream that are separate from each other.
Now, let's crunch some numbers shall we? And, we'll start with the loss of revenue from repealing Obamacare's taxes, a number that begins at 800 billion dollars over 10 years, according to the Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget.
These losses would include 150 billion dollars from the 0.9 percent Medicare payroll surtax on wages over $200,000. Another area that would be affected is the 3.8 percent surtax on investment income above $200,000, which they state equates to about 250 billion dollars.
Repealing the parts of Obamacare that generate revenue from fees on medical device companies, insurance companies, drug manufacturers, drug importers, high earners with Medicare, and even tanning salons, would lose about one-fourth of the monies taken in by Obamacare.
A report by the Center On Budget And Policy Priorities stated a Congressional repeal bill passed in 2016 would have produced one trillion dollars in savings over the next ten years.
The Brookings Institute, on Think Row in Washington, D.C., that conducts research in such areas as economics, claims revenue lost from Obamacare's tax increases would only leave 40 percent of the 1.24 trillion in coverage expenses needed over the next 10 years for a Republican replacement Act. If that is true, where is the other 60 percent going to come from?
Repealing Obamacare, and forging a new replacement Act, will likely produce tough battles on re-enacting Medicare payroll taxes on the wealthy, hospital taxes, health industry taxes, and how they will affect the Middle Class and the poor.
Tennessee Senator Bob Corker explained, "The repeal process is going to repeal all revenues but keep in place the subsidies for three years. You're taking 116 billion dollars and just throwing it into a mud puddle by continuing subsidies without revenues."
As much as the Republicans desire to repeal Obamacare, a law that obviously needs replacement, at what cost to the average American citizen should they do so?
| Author Notes |
Barack Obama's legacy, Obamacare, is Number One on the Republicans' Hit List, but at what cost to the average American citizen should they repeal this law?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to include them in your reviews. As American citizens we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
According to Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President Trump's Environmental Protection Agency-Designate, climate change is not a hoax. This comment broke with both The Donald's and his own previous statements.
At his Senate Confirmation Hearing, Pruitt stated he disagreed with The Donald's assessment that, "Global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese to harm the economic competitiveness of the United States."
Previously, Pruitt had commented that the fact he did not believe the "scientific evidence showing that the planet is warming and human-made carbon emissions are to blame." Then what is?
Pruitt also earlier had stated, "The debate over global warming is far from settled, and that scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connections to the actions of mankind."
Conceding "human activity contributes in some manner to climate change," Pruitt would not state his thoughts on whether burning fossil fuels is the primary reason, nor would he admit whether or not sea levels are rising.
Two elements that support the allegation that the earth's climate is changing are studies that illustrate the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have decreased in mass, and the world's oceans have risen an average of almost seven inches in the last 100 years.
A third supporting allegation of climate change would be a joint statement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NATO that confirmed 2016 was the hottest year in recorded history.
Now get this. As the Oklahoma Attorney General, Scott Pruitt joined in a lawsuit by several states against the Obama Administration's plan to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. He also joined a lawsuit against the EPA's expansion of water bodies regulated by the Clean Water Act that forces industries to clean up polluted waterways. Pruitt was also involved in six other lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency he is proposed to head.
Pruitt does not believe, "environmental regulation should occur in an economic vacuum." He further supports the "simultaneous pursuit of the goals of environmental protection and economic growth."
Because oil and gas industry executives have donated to Pruitt's political campaigns in the past, many environmentalists oppose his nomination to lead the EPA. But, should Big Money contributions to a political candidate be enough grounds to prevent their nomination to a major position such as the head of a governmental agency?
| Author Notes |
The Donald referred to climate change as "A hoax by the Chinese to harm the economic competitiveness of the United States." Was he correct in his assumption?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
Some of you may not have had the opportunity to hear The Donald's Inaugural Address. Short, sweet, and to the point though it was, it contained a wealth of insight into what can be expected over the course of the next four years. In this essay, I will attempt to break some of its key highlights down for you.
"Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans and people of the world, thank you. We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and restore its promise for all of our people."
If The Donald is able to fulfill even half of this comment then he will have proven himself to be one of the best Presidents in the history of the United States. After all the diviciveness caused by the misguided, and for America, unfortunate, last eight years under Barack Obama, reuniting this great country of ours together again is, in itself, what many Americans are most longing for.
"Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for many, many years to come. We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done."
What more can the United States do than to restore itself back to the world leader it is recognized to be?
"Every four years we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power. And we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent. Thank you.
Today's ceremony, however, has a very special meaning because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you the people.
For too long, a small group in our nation's capitol has reaped the rewards of government while the people have bore the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed.
"The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you. It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration. And this, the United States is your country."
These were key points for why so many voters turned against the establishment in Washington D.C. and elected The Donald to the Presidency. They felt they had been left behind. Way behind! A classic, shining example of this was not being able to land jobs, that were routinely moved overseas to where the labor is so much cheaper, and the quality of products built there matches, but were in return imported back into the United States, while here in America our own people suffered on all fronts.
"What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20, 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again."
The Donald's comments here are self-explanatory and spot on. It is the people who should have the say in what happens in this country, not the government. If that is what the politicians desire, let them move to Russia or Cuba, where life is run that way. This point also touches on the hot topic of immigration, and why the multitudes of people from other countries flock to the United States.
"The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Everyone is listening to you now. You came by the tens of millions to be part of a historic movement, the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families and good jobs for themselves. These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public. But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists.
Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities, rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation. An education system flushed with cash but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge.
And the crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
We are one nation, and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams, and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home and one glorious destiny."
On addressing The Donald's comments about great schools for American children, all one needs to do is examine Barack Obama's School Improvement Grants Program, the largest federal investment ever targeted to failing schools. This program provided billions of dollars into overhauling the nation's worst schools and failed miserably, as did ALL of Obama's Presidency.
(To be continued)
| Author Notes |
Donald Trump's Inaugural Address bears closer examination, and this multi-part Editorial will do exactly that.
No matter what may be your thoughts and feelings about Trump, feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. |
By Brett Matthew West
"The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans. For many decades we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry, subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military.
We've defended other nations' borders while refusing to defend our own. And we've spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay. We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon
One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world. But that is the past, and now we are looking only to the future.
We assembled here today are issuing a new degree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital and every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it's going to be only America first, America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families.
We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our product, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body, and I will never ever let you down. America will start winning again, winning like never before."
The Donald's withdrawing the United States from the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) on January 23, 2017, as he promised in his Presidential campaign he would do, seems to signal his intent to follow through with his promises.
For those of you who do not know what the TPP was, you're not missing much. It was simply another Obama fiasco that he said promised to promote economic growth, support the creation and retention of jobs, enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness, raise living standards, reduce poverty in signatory countries, and promote transparency, good governance, and enhance labor and environmental protections."
In reality, all the TPP would actually have done was undermine the US economy. It was simply another Obama screw-up that even Democrats wanted this great nation out from under.
"We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth, and we will bring back our dreams. We will build new roads and highways and bridges and airports and tunnels and railways all across our wonderful nation. We will get our people off of welfare and back to work, rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor. We will follow two simple rules: buy American and hire American.
We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world, but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will re-enforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth.
At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity.
We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity. When America is united, America is totally unstoppable. There should be no fear. We are protected and we will always be protected. We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement. And most importantly, we will be protected by God.
Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger. In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving. We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action, constantly complaining but never doing anything about it. The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action."
That would be a major improvement over most politicians, don't you think?
"Do not allow anyone to tell you that it can not be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again. We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries, and technologies of tomorrow.
A new national pride will stir ourselves, lift our sights and heal our divisions. It's time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms and we all salute the same great American flag.
And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams and they are infused with the breath of life by the almighty creator.
So to all Americans in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, from ocean to ocean, hear these words: You will never be ignored again. Your voice, your hopes and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.
Together we will make America strong again, we will make America wealthy again, we will make America proud again, we will make America safe again. And, yes, together we will make America great again.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless America."
There you have it, folks. Word for word exactly what The Donald said in his Inaugural Address. The real question becomes how much of his rhetoric can he actually deliver on? Time alone will answer that question.
(One point I do wholeheartedly agree with is America First!)
| Author Notes |
On January 20, 2017, Donald John Trump became the 45th President of the United States. These were the words he spoke as his Inaugural Address.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP:
In my Editorial, Part 2 - The Donald's Address, dated January 24, 2017, I briefly touched on The Donald fulfilling one of his campaign promises and withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
This action appears to signal a new international direction for the United States that could impact the Chinese and Asian trade markets. The Donald's reason for rejecting American participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was quite understandable. He felt the pact was detrimental to American businesses and would not be a boost for American workers. The bottom line: it is about time the US starts looking out for the best interests of its own.
Signing the Executive Order withdrawing the United States from the TPP was mostly a symbolic gesture because Barack Obama never forwarded the accord to Congress for ratification. So, in reality, this was an example of The Donald having to clean up another one of Obama's worthless messes.
Several years were wasted by the Obama administration negotiating the TPP involving eleven Pacific Rim countries in the first place, and the Washington consensus on the deal soured over time.
MEXICO CITY POLICY:
In addition to eliminating the TPP, The Donald signed a memorandum that froze federal governmental hiring, except for the military. He also reinstated a ban on the Mexico City Policy that has been batted around since 1984.
This is the most significant US policy initiative on abortion in the area of foreign assistance. The Mexico City Policy requires "non-governmental organizations receiving US aid to refrain from performing or promoting abortion as a method of family planning in developing nations."
If these organizations can not follow the requirements, then why should they receive American aid? Go ahead and apply for a loan for a new home, but don't submit all the required information. Do you think you should still recieve the loan? The same general principle applies here.
Specifically, what The Donald did was to reinstate a ban on federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide information on them, thus fulfilling another one of his campaign promises. Historically, Republican Presidents reinstate this ban and Democratic Presidents provide this money to these organizations.
IMMIGRATION:
When addressed about immigration at the start of Trump's first full week as President, Sean Spicer, The Donald's Spokesman, said, "Trump intended to follow through on his proposals," and that "he would not move quickly, or perhaps at all, to reinstate deportations {for a certain group of young illegal immigrants protected under the Obama administration known as Dreamers}."
Spicer also stated, "Trump's focus would be on people in the US illegally who have criminal records or who pose a threat to the country. That's where the priority's going to be, and then we're going to continue to work through the entire number of folks that are here illegally."
In my opinion, exactly what The Donald needs to do is clean up the riff-raff hanging out illegally in the United States and send them back to whence they came. Let them be a problem for their own native lands. Those kinds of issues are not needed here in America.
NOTES:
Perhaps a real good step in the right direction is that The Donald shows a penchant for consulting with numerous people before making decisions. Is this a good step in the process or should he go the course alone?
I will write a follow-up on the illegal immigrants known as the Dreamers. That's another whole can of worms all by itself. Be looking for that Editorial.
| Author Notes |
A recap of The Donald's first official day as President of the United States. To say the least, he was a busy little boy.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. (I continue to get tons of reviews and PMs, so it may take me a little while to respond to all of them, but I will.) As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
Another one of Barack Obama's many abuses of power, during his tenure as the worst President in the history of the United States, applied directly to a particular group of illegal immigrants known as Dreamers.
The Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals Act, better known as DACA, was issued by Kenya's Favorite Son, Barack Obama, in 2012. This measure offered these illegal immigrants 2-year renewable work permits and deportation relief if they were brought into the United States before they turned 16 years old and lived continuously in America since 2007.
If these, so called, Dreamers attended school or graduated, or served in the military, passed a criminal background check, registered with the government, and paid $465, they did not face being returned from whence they came. What a crock!
Should The Donald overturn this Executive Order? By all means. This action alone could idle 750,000 young illegal immigrants, and possibly cause damage to the economy of our country. Until Americans take their places, that is.
According to the advocacy organization FWD.us, that was founded by technology industry leaders, 95 percent of these illegal immigrants are either working, studying, or both. FWD.us also claims these Dreamers purchase vehicles, buy homes, start businesses, and carry work permits because, as illegal immigrants, they are not eligible to receive federal student aid. FWD.us also states deporting these Dreamers back to their native lands would cost the US economy more than 400 billion dollars over the next 10 years.
What this Special Interest group known as FWD.us fails to realize is that Americans would take over these things. At that point, these alleged losses would not actually occur. FWD.us would, however, prefer that illegal immigrants be given what Americans should rightfully have instead.
In December of 2016, three Republican and two Democratic Senators introduced the Bridge Act that ultimately allows Dreamers to keep their work permits, and offers them three more years of deportation relief if the Obama Order is rescinded, which would allow Congress until 2020 to come up with a solution to this problem.
South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the sponsors of the Bridge Act, believes the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals Act is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed.
At the same time, Graham states, "I do not believe we should pull the rug out and push these young men and women, who come out of the shadows and register with the federal government, back into the darkness." A classic example of a Senator speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, don't you think?
In a December 2016 Time Magazine interview, The Donald, in speaking about the Dreamers who qualify, said, "They got brought here at a very young age, they've worked here, they've gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they're in never-never land because they don't know what's going to happen."
Should Congress pass the Bridge Act to keep these illegal immigrants in the United States for three more years or send them immediately packing? And, if they, the powers that be, decide to keep these illegal immigrants in America, how will that reflect on others that end up being deported? (If any of them actually do, as The Donald has promised would happen?)
(PERSONAL NOTE: Build that wall, Donald! Like so many millions of other Americans, whether they will openly admit it or not, I stand solidly behind you on that issue! It is way past time Americans take back what is rightfully theirs instead of giving it to freeloading illegal immigrants all the time!)
| Author Notes |
Dreamers, a certain age group of illegal immigrants that may be included in The Donald's "Kick The Illegals Back To Whence They Came From" Campaign.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to include them in your reviews. As Americans, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
Resulting from declining mall traffic, and a less than favorable holiday buying season, many large American corporations are increasingly feeling the pressure to close more of their stores as more and more business is lost to the internet.
That is in addition to approximately five thousand stores that have been closed in the last 18 months alone. Among the most highly endangered operations are Macy's, Sears, and The Limited, that at one time grew to be one of the most powerful chains in the US mall industry.
Other major corporations with declining business include the world's biggest hamburger chain, McDonald's, with a decrease of 0.7 percent in sales during the fourth-quarter of 2016, and the oil and gas drilling Halliburton, who attributed their decline to weaker market demands outside of North America.
Macy's plans to close 68 stores in 2017, and 100 overall, and, Sears plans to shut down 150 of its locations. Although the American economy is going to take another hit, the news is not all bad.
Sprint, recently purchased 33 percent of the music streaming service Tidal, that popular Recording Artists Kanye West, Madonna, Jay-Z, and others own. Additionally, the handbag maker Kate Spade, who is being bid for takeover by Michael Kors and Coach, see their business on the rise.
In an effort to assist American businesses, The Donald met with leaders of some of America's largest corporations and promised them three significant things: a fast-track to open factories, to massively cut taxes, and to eliminate 75 percent of government regulations that hinder business.
Perhaps we should make that four promises The Donald made to these corporate leaders, because he also threatened to place a substantial border tax on any company that moves its production out of the United States.
However, The Donald does not intend to end governmental regulations on business. He told these leaders, "Now, we're going to have regulations, and it'll be just as strong and just as good and just as protective of the people as the regulations that we have right now."
Trump also lamented, "The problem with the regulations that we have right now is that you can't do anything. I have people that tell me that they have more people working on regulations than they have doing product."
Then, The Donald advised these business leaders, "Keep your production within the United States and you will be rewarded."
He also promised to provide them incentives to build and to expedite their requests to grow or start new businesses.
Economics is the one area I believe The Donald will excel in the most. I mean, how can a twice-over, self-made, billionaire not know about business and what it takes to be successful in that arena?
| Author Notes |
The one area I believe The Donald will excel in the most is economics.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As America citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. |
By Brett Matthew West
Special Interests lobbyists place a tremendous strain on government. A part of the democratic process, lobbyists attempt to persuade enactment of legislation that benefits their group, and in most cases, the lobbyist is well paid for their efforts.
However, anyone who petitions government to voice an opinion acts as a lobbyist. This regulated industry is also protected by the First Amendment that guarantees the right to free speech, assembly, and petition.
Through such measures as advertising, professional lobbyists analyze and research legislation. They also attend Congressional hearings, and attempt to educate government officials on their issues. Additionally, they attempt to change public opinions.
According to the Senate Office of Public Records, the top three industries for lobbying in 2016 were pharmaceuticals/health products, insurance, and electric utilities.
In an effort to, as he put it, "Drain the swamp," The Donald has placed bans on lobbying in Washington, D.C., where there are approximately 10,000 registered lobbyists. "Drain the swamp" became a chant large crowds would yell back at The Donald along his Presidential Election trail. This action was also the fulfillment of another one of Trump's campaign promises.
Specifically, what Trump banned was administration officials from ever lobbying on behalf of foreign governments. He also imposed a ban on all Executive officials from lobbying for five years after leaving their government jobs.
Trump's desire in taking these actions to curb the influence of lobbyists, and curtail corruption in Washington, was so individuals who want to aid him in his quest to 'Make America Great Again' would "focus on the jobs they will be doing to help the American people," and "not think about the future income they could rake in by peddling their influences after serving in government."
| Author Notes |
Although a part of the democratic process, lobbyists place a tremendous strain on government.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
Hailed by Republicans and Democrats alike in energy-producing states, but protested by Native Americans, Donald Trump rapidly sprang into action to aggressively overhaul the US energy policy.
In doing so, The Donald signed Executive Orders that advanced the Dakota Access and Keystone XL oil pipelines. These actions also undid more of Barack Obama's ill-advised climate change legacy.
The Keystone XL pipeline will run from Canada to Nebraska. There, it will attach to other lines already in place that lead to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Trump also required the pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline be made in the United States. The Dakota Access pipeline is being constructed by Energy Transfer Partners of Texas.
The Donald also invited TransCanada, the Keystone pipeline builder to resubmit its application for a Presidential Permit to construct and operate the pipeline to the State Department.
Despite major protests from Native Americans, and certain environmental groups including the Sierra Club, Trump also wants the US Army Corps of Engineers to speedily review and approve easement and construction requests for the Dakota Access pipeline.
The 1,200-mile long Dakota Access pipeline would carry North Dakota oil to Illinois. It would also skirt the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and cross Lake Oahe, a Missouri River reservoir, and the tribe's means of drinking water.
Controversy surrounds the Dakota Access pipeline because, according to Dave Archambault, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's Spokesman, it breaks treaty rights between the United States and the Native Americans. It also threatens their cultural sites.
Archambault lamented, "Americans know this pipeline was unfairly rerouted toward our nation and without our consent."
Texas Senator John Cornyn, the second-highest ranking Republican in the Senate, countered these comments with, "Today's news is a breath of fresh air, and proof that President Trump won't let radical special-interest groups stand in the way of doing what's best for American workers."
Until he sold them in 2016, The Donald did own a small amount of stocks in both Energy Transfer Partners and Phillips 66, the energy company that owns one-fourth of the Dakota Access pipeline.
| Author Notes |
Will oil pipelines help ease America's dependency on countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq for its oil needs?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
In an effort to strengthen voting procedures on a national level, The Donald ordered a major investigation into what he called "widespread voter fraud".
Three specific areas the probe will research are voters who have died but are still being carried on the rolls, illegal immigrants who are allowed to vote even though they are not supposed to, and voters registered to vote in more than one state.
Press Secretary, Sean Spicer would not elaborate on whether or not the FBI would lead the investigation. Spicer only commented that, "the goal of the probe would be to understand where the problem exists and how deep it goes." He also stated it would encompass more than just the 2016 Presidential Election.
The two Democratic strongholds of New York and California were singled out as leading culprits. NOTE: The Donald did not compete in these states during the 2016 Presidential campaign.
Responding that this investigation was intended as a "means by {The Donald} to restrict access to the ballet box," of course, Democratic leaders have blown Trump's probe way out of proportion.
If the FBI does not oversee this investigation, then Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, who is The Donald's selection for Attorney General, and has previously demonstrated sympathy towards claims of voting fraud, could.
In 2012, Pew Research, a non-partisan "fact tank" in Washington, D.C. that provides information on public opinion, social issues, demographics, media content analysis, and opinion polling, found approximately 24 million voter registrations were invalid. And, the Justice Department of Barack Obama's Administration held the position that election fraud occurred. Both of these cases happened long before The Donald came on the scene.
With longstanding facts on the table, is Trump justified in ordering an investigation into voter fraud? Perhaps a more appropriate question would be what are the Democrats trying to hide?
(Next Up: Eliminating The Islamic State)
| Author Notes |
Voter fraud has been a longstanding problem in the United States.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
The ongoing US conflict against the Islamic State has occurred since September 11, 2001. In a revamped effort to increase American efforts against these terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Donald Trump is considering a wider range of options than the United States has pursued in the past.
The Donald originally stated his pledge to erase the Islamic State "completely off the face of the Earth" in his Inaugural Address. However, he has never detailed plans in how the US should defeat ISIS.
These possibilities include:
-deploy significantly more troops to the region. Currently there are approximately 5,160 troops deployed in Iraq and about 503 troops stationed in Syria.
-boost military aid to Kurdish fighters engaged in conflict against the Islamic State
-send more Apache helicopters to the battle zones
-provide additional authority to the United States military in routine combat decisions
-send an Army brigade to help recapture Al-Raqqah, the ISIS headquarters
-enhance aid provided to the US-backed Kurds known as the YPG, that has been the most effective fighting force against ISIS in eastern and northern Syria. This aid may include machine guns, heavy combat vehicles, and rocket-propelled grenades.
-better train Syrian and Iraqi troops in battling ISIS
-increase intelligence efforts
-use the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System rocket launcher
-assume a larger, direct, US role in fighting ISIS
-employ closer counterterrorism coordination with Russia
While The Donald has suggested sending an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Syria and Iraq, military commanders are unlikely to request the number of troops deployed to the region be increased.
An increase of the size The Donald has suggested would likely unsettle the US-allied government in the area, especially in Turkey.
The Pentagon would desire more freedom in making daily plans on how to fight the Islamic State. These commanders would also prefer the authority to decide when and how to use superior American weaponry in this conflict, as well as less White House micromanagement of their efforts.
Terrorists attacks on the United States should be sufficient examples of how badly the Islamic State needs to be eliminated in order to keep America safer. The sooner the better, and, in my opinion, by whatever means possible. (That comment comes from a US veteran of Desert Shield/Desert Storm).
There are a lot of options to complete the mission of wiping the Islamic State "completely off the face of the earth," a necessary goal that will not be completed any too soon to suit many people. Choose the right one and get the job done!
| Author Notes |
Everyone knows the Islamic State needs to be eradicated in order to stop their widespread terrorism.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
Can you really believe Election Day Exit Polls? Do they carry any substantial weight at all? If so, nearly one-fifth of voters nationwide listed Supreme Court appointments as the single-most deciding factor in determining who they voted for as President.
Also, according to these same polls, sixty percent of voters backed Donald Trump because they believed he would be better on selecting Supreme Court Justices.
In support of these allegations, Mercer University Law Professor Jeremey Kidd stated, "I personally know a good two or three dozen people who voted for Trump solely because they thought he'd be better on Supreme Court Justices."
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017, The Donald announced his nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. It was Appeals Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
A former Law Clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, and now a Conservative Activist, Carrie Servino said, "He will be an excellent, excellent choice."
A Conservative Supreme Court is a highly valued commodity for Republicans because of major cases that come before it including gun control and abortion.
John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation, one of the most influential Conservative research organizations in the United States, and a Washington, D.C. "Think Tank" that attempts to influence US policy making, echoed those sentiments by saying, "There are only nine of them and they serve for a very long time."
The Heritage Foundation has had a heavy hand in helping The Donald select who he would fill his Administration with. Additionally, James Jay Carafano, a Vice President of the Heritage Foundation, as well as a member of The Donald's Transition Team, co-authored the Executive Order banning Muslims from entering the United States.
College of William and Mary Government Professor Christine Nemacheck appeared to wrap the whole issue up by explaining, "It's not surprising that when we got down to what looked like the real short list, it was an Appeals Court Judge. That's about being absolutely sure we've got the record straight."
So, again I ask, "Did the Supreme Court have the most influence on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election?"
*****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
NOTES ABOUT NEIL GORSUCH:
Possessing a writer's flair, Neil Gorsuch is a fast-rising Conservative Judge. At 49-years-old, he is the youngest Supreme Court nominee in the last 25 years. Gorsuch has been based on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado, and is well known for advocating court review of government regulations, clear colloquial writing, religious freedom defense, and law enforcement skepticism.
When announcing him as the nominee at his first Public Address from the White House as President, The Donald highly praised Gorsuch saying, "Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bi-partisan support."
Gorsuch outlined his legal philosophy by stating, "It is the rule of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge."
Previous rulings Gorsuch has been involved with include favoring privately-held for-profit secular corporations and individuals who own them, as well as favoring those who raised religious objections to paying for contraceptives for women covered under their health care plans.
Gorsuch served two years in George W. Bush's Department of Justice.
His mother is Anne Gorsuch Burford, the Head of Ronald Reagan's Environmental Protection Agency and the first female Director of that organization.
The Ivy Leaguer earned his law degrees from Columbia University and the Harvard Law School. Gorsuch also earned a degree in Philosophy from Oxford University.
Gorsuch believes in simplifying the justice system to make it more accessible.
He is also well remembered for striking out at Liberals in a 2005 opinion piece he submitted to the Conservative National Review Magazine in which he proclaimed, "American Liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballet box, as the primary means for effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education."
| Author Notes |
Was the Supreme Court the deciding factor in The Donald becoming the President?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
When Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, of Maine and Alaska respectively, stated their intentions to vote against Betsy DeVos as the Secretary of Education, the Democrats became one vote shy of derailing her confirmation to the post The Donald desires DeVos to fill.
Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn, the Majority Whip, proclaimed, "She'll be confirmed. You can take that to the bank."
The reasons Collins and Murkowski provided for voting against DeVos include their concerns of her lack of experience in improving public schools in rural areas. They did, however, approve of DeVos' advocating for school vouchers and charter schools.
Murkowski was especially worried because as she put it, "Children in remote communities across Alaska depend on a strong public school system." She was also concerned that DeVos "{lacks} the background to strengthen that system."
Considering there are 48 Democratic Senators, if they unanimously vote together against DeVos' confirmation, and Collins and Murkowski's votes are added in with them, the overall vote to confirm would stand at 50 Republican Senators for DeVos' confirmation and a combined total of 50 votes against it. In the case of a tie vote, Vice President Mike Pence would cast the deciding vote.
If a third Republican Senator voted against DeVos' confirmation, and several of them are facing pressure from their constituents to do so, her nomination could be defeated. Additionally, both of the largest teachers unions in the United States have campaigned against DeVos' nomination, particularly after she did not fare well during her Confirmation Hearing and stumbled over some basic education policy questions.
In the long run, is Betsy DeVos truly the best fit for Secretary of Education? Or, are American students entitled to someone better suited for the position?
| Author Notes |
The Donald's selection of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education has become a tough sell to confirm.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is all about. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
Many of you may disagree with this Editorial. That is one of the beauties of living in the United States. We are all free to express our thoughts and feelings here in this wonderful country we call America.
To begin with, I ask," So, America is a melting pot, is it? And The Donald's ban on the Seven Select Muslim countries has the whole world in an uproar, does it?" Well, for those of you who believe that, it is time for you to take a chill pill.
Then, after those who disagree with The Donald's ban on terrorism catch your breath from your ranting and raving about how bad a policy banning the Select Seven is, explain what you are about to read.
Many politicians, and everyday people are speaking out against the impact of The Donald's administration by yelling, "We are a nation of immigrants. This goes against our most important values. But we {the United States} also have a long record of barring immigrants, denigrating them, building walls. That's the flip side." - Erika Lee, Director of the Immigration History Research Center of the University of Minnesota.
Oops! How quickly people want to forget that chapter of American history and sling mud at The Donald for his ban, screaming, "E Pluribus Unum! (Out of many, One)."
You claim The Donald's ban on the Select Seven has vilified him, has it? Then, remarkably, he is not the only one the shadow falls down KER-BOOM! on. All Americans have the distinct pleasure of sharing that honor with him, even those screaming the loudest about The Donald's ban.
Let's examine the proof of that statement real closely. Do try to keep up here. I don't want you to miss any of this. We will start with the United States slamming the golden door shut on Eastern Europeans. Still with me? Southern Europeans? The Chinese?
America is notorious for these actions. Remember the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798? Wasn't the first incident of this "atrocious" American behavior just 22 short years after the United States gained its independence in 1776?
Even today, February 4, 2017, the deportation laws remain on the books, and that is not The Donald's book. It is the American book. Why did these laws come into effect? Because Americans were mortified that many immigrants were dangerous interlopers. God forbid, many US citizens believe that very thing about Muslims today!
Now, let's gander at the Know Nothings of the 1840s and 1850s, shall we? This popular movement was brought on by the rush of Irish and Germans, as well as the Catholics, who held incompatible values to those of the United States, flocking to our shores in massive droves.
What about the 1892 Chinese Exclusion Act that turned away many Chinese immigrants from America? The Chinese were viewed at the time as the "Yellow Peril," even though Chinese labor built much of the American West.
Now, let's don't forget about the Jews, Italians, and the Red Scare following World War One. At the same time these were occurring, very little immigration from Asia, Africa, the Arab world, as well as Eastern and Southern Europe, was permitted. Get the picture here?
The Donald is not the first American President to ban Muslims from migrating to America. Oh, but, how soon this point is forgotten by those who chose to claim he is way out of line in doing so.
For six months, Iraqi Muslims were barred from migrating to the United States under the Obama administration in 2011. Where were all the protesters then? Funny, how the Democrats were okay with that action, when it was their idea to do so.
With all these documented instances of the United States preventing immigrants from entering our country you still want to claim The Donald's actions in banning Muslims are appalling? As he himself said when speaking about how tough he would be on the Russians, "Give me a break!"
The Donald is doing nothing more than all Americans before him have always done, except for one very necessary teeny-weeny little thing that makes his actions different from those of the past. HE IS ATTEMPTING TO STOP SOME OF THE TERRORISM PEOPLE FROM THE SELECT SEVEN HAVE REPEATEDLY PERPETRATED ON AMERICAN SOIL! And, for that, you want to lambaste him?
In my way of thinking, if so many as one American life is saved by The Donald's ban on Muslims entering the United States that deserves a hearty round of applause, not all the hoopla that has been brought on by his actions. Tell me, where is The Donald so wrong but all these other instances were so right?
God bless the United States and may we always be free! That especially includes from terrorism, and those who would seek to impose such dangers on ALL Americans.
Personally, I say The Donald's ban on the Select Seven should be permanent! And, my money says that I am not alone in this belief, if people are brave enough to tell the truth.
| Author Notes |
I have decided to make this posting an exception to my general rule of not promoting my own writings.
Currently, there are 24 posted chapters to this book. It will continue to grow daily. However, because I do not promote my writings, the only way to insure you receive them is to become a fan. Many FanStorians are heavily engaged in conversations about these postings, and being able to express their thoughts and feelings about The Donald is something they continually tell me they appreciate the most about it. That is one feature of my book I plan to keep on allowing, as I have from the time I began this book. It does not matter if you agree with my writings, disagree with them, or simply want to add input to them. All comments are welcome. So, if you would like to receive these postings and participate in the discussions about them, again, you will have to become a fan as I generally do not promote my writings. ****************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** The Donald's ban on the Select Seven Muslim countries has the entire world in an uproar, but he is so right in the actions he has taken. No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your review. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
NOTE: Let's see the Democrats, the people they are paying to protest, and others continue their smear campaign against The Donald for abolishing this amendment to the United States Tax Code. No doubt, like everything else he has done so far as the President, they will attempt to.
Religious freedom is one of the principles the United States was founded on. The Donald has vowed that fabled institution, under threat as he perceives it to be, will no longer fall under one particular IRS rule.
The rule in question is known as the Johnson Amendment and states, "Churches and other non-profit organizations that are exempt from taxation are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any public campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for elective public office" - taken straight off the IRS website.
If they do they risk losing their tax-exempt status.
At the National Prayer Breakfast, The Donald declared, "I will get rid of, and totally destroy, the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution."
An Evangelical Christian, The Donald supports annihilating the Johnson Amendment that has been on the books since 1954 for tax exempt charities and churches. Action by the Congress would be required to abolish the rule.
Repealing the Johnson Amendment would become a can of worms if it only pertained to churches, but not charities. This could also result in lawsuits being filed, and open up churches to "possibly spending their resources to openly try to influence elections and for donors to get tax breaks for political contributions," according to University of Note Dame Law Professor Lloyd Mayer.
Statistically speaking, eighty percent of Americans polled by LifeWay Research, an organization, that according to its mission statement, "assists and equips church leaders with insight and advice that will lead to greater levels of church health and effectiveness," believe it is inappropriate for pastors to endorse a candidate in church.
Many religious Conservatives would also like to see protection for faith-based charities, schools and ministries who object to same-sex marriage and abortion.
***An interesting perspective would be to see what religious leaders, who are also FanStorians, would have to say about this subject. If you are one, and are willing to state your opinion, feel free to do so.***
| Author Notes |
An Evangelical Christian, The Donald believes in separation of church and state.
Evangelical Christians believe that the Gospels consists of the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in the atonement of Jesus. They also believe in being Born Again, and that the Bible is God's revelation to humanity. No doubt Democrats, and their paid protesting Trump bashers, will attempt to smear his stance on religion, just like they have everything else he has attempted to achieve since he became President. No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are, feel free to include them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
El Presidente Donald Trump must fancy himself back on Celebrity Apprentice. Or he enjoys saying the two words "you're fired!" together. Either way, it appears obvious The Donald will not tolerate dissent within his administration.
The first to be shown the door was Acting Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates, who defied Trump's Executive Order pertaining to halting America's refugee program and suspending immigration from seven select Muslim countries - a legal order.
Yates was a carryover from Barack Obama's administration. So, was she any real loss at all? Seconding this aggressive action was Sean Spicer, The Donald's mouthpiece, who warned, "{Career employees should} either get with the program or go."
Coming to Yates' defense was William Baer, the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice, who pointed out, "There is reason for grave concern that the incoming President views the Justice Department just as another political weapon to go after people who disagree with him."
To which Sean Spicer retaliated with, "Yates was rightfully removed from a position of leadership that is given to someone who is supposed to execute orders that are handed down to them properly." He also commented, "The Attorney General is required to execute lawful orders."
Democratic fallout from Yates' firing became the sole basis for delaying a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Senator Jeff Sessions, The Donald's choice to become the Attorney General. It also led to the growing dissent over Trump's Executive Order halting the refugee program. That includes some of The Donald's own Administration officials.
The highest-ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, attacked The Donald's Order and claimed Jeff Sessions' ideals appeared to have shaped it. She also remarked she did not believe Sessions, as the Attorney General, would stand up to, and against, The Donald.
Democrats, who simply do not have a high enough head count in the Senate, or the House of Representatives for that matter, to prevent anything Republicans chose to do, will continue speaking out against The Donald and his nominees. (Ho-Hum! YAWN!)
On his behalf, Sessions is on the record stating he would recluse himself from any Justice Department investigation of Hillary Clinton's email practices and the Clinton Foundation charity. He also said he would conform to Supreme Court decisions on legalized same-sex marriage and abortion rights. Additionally, Sessions promised not to allow his personal views to interfere with his duties as Attorney General. (Writer's Note: Yea, right!)
So, the political games continue, however, this time around is it possible "You're fired!" becomes the Swan Song of The Donald's Presidency?
| Author Notes |
Celebrity Apprentice? The United States Presidency? At the moment, with all the games the Democrats and the Republicans are both playing, is there any difference?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is all about. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
Settling an extremely divisive nomination, the former Exxon Mobil Chief Executive, and highly controversial, Rex Tillerson was confirmed in a largely partisan vote of 56 to 43 to become the Secretary of State.
With a near-toxic divisiveness between the Democrats and the Republicans across Capitol Hill, Tillerson will have to address relations with Russia and China, and you might even want to throw Israel in there after they were warned about developing more in the West Bank.
He will also have to deal with the potential threats of North Korea and Iran, who recently attempted to fire a banned missile. And, Tillerson will need to reassure European and Far East allies of the United States' intentions and goodwill.
Perhaps Tillerson's first major distractions though will be to settle the mutinous state of the many staffworkers, and the diplomatic demoralization currently sweeping the State Department. These actions were brought on by The Donald's "America First" policy.
This highly volatile situation has the usually somber national security establishment, that observes key areas in the foreign policy arena, agitated and stirred up like never before.
Dissention in the State Department has been produced by The Donald's Russian overtures, snubbing NATO allies, disrespecting Mexico, and especially his now infamous Executive Order banning immigrants from seven Muslim countries.
Additionally, because many Republican foreign policy veterans criticized The Donald during his Presidential campaign, they are effectively banned from joining his administration.
Tillerson offers no previous government experience and, on top of lacking those credentials, he is a friend of Vladimer Putin, the President of Russia.
Several numbers of Foreign Service employees, more than 800 to be exact, signed a Dissent to The Donald's Order to suspend all travel from the aforementioned seven Muslim countries that it applied to in an effort to prevent terrorism. What the rarely used Dissent accomplished was to allow State Department personnel to voice an opinion on foreign policy that is different from the President's.
In part, the Dissent reads, "A policy which closes our doors to over 200 million legitimate travelers in the hopes of preventing a small number of travelers who intend to harm Americans...will not achieve it's aim of making our country safer. Such a policy runs counter to core American values of nondiscrimination, fair play and extending a warm welcome to foreign visitors and immigrants."
********************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************
MY TURN TO SPEAK:
As long as they are not from the Select Seven, this policy does not apply to immigrants. And, if they are from the Select Seven, too bad! One American life saved from terrorism makes The Donald's policy very much effective regardless of what this Dissent claims. There have been enough American lives lost to terrorists from these countries. There does not need to be any more.
Recently, I received a review telling me instead of banning people from the Select Seven we should love them and that will stop their terrorism. To each their own way of thinking, but, having proudly served in Desert Shield/Desert Storm, I have witnessed firsthand the atrocities people from these Select Seven thrive on in the name of their Jihad. And I for one, agree with what The Donald is trying to achieve with his ban on them from entering the United States. As far as I am concerned, that ban should be permanent.
Additionally, almost every single act of terrorism against the United States from 9-11 on, has been tied to these Select Seven in one way or another. But, don't just take my word for it. Do the research yourself. The connections are well documented.
Once you have done that, then try to sell me on the wolf tickets The Donald's ban is not necessary. That will not happen!
I sincerely hope Trump finds a way around this ridiculous ruling by Judge Robart in Seattle that has temporarily blocked The Donald's ban on the Select Seven. Because if he does not, mark my words: some deranged terrorist from one of these locations is bound to strike again on American soil.
Unfortunately, maybe that is what it will take for people to finally wake up and smell the coffee pertaining to the reality of this situation.
Then, they will indeed be moaning the blues that terrorism has once again reared its ugly head against Americans. WHEN IT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
| Author Notes |
Controversial Rex Tillerson was confirmed for Secretary of State.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to include them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
Referring to the Dodd-Frank Act as "A regulatory overreach that slowed the economy and stifled lending to consumers and businesses," as well as "a disaster," The Donald has begun actions to reverse the strict banking regulations imposed by this piece of legislation.
Officially known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act, the Dodd-Frank regulations were enacted on July 21, 2010, after the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis. This crisis is considered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The stated design of this Act was "To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect American taxpayers by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial service practices, and for other purposes."
Dodd-Frank imposed tight curbs on American banks and the manner in which they are allowed to operate. Community Banks were especially restricted by this Act.
The Dodd-Frank Act was a response to the risk-taking recklessness of American banks that spiked the financial crisis at the time. It also inflated the housing bubble and necessitated a 700 billion dollar bailout by taxpayers.
Sean Spicer, The Donald's mouthpiece and Press Secretary, claimed, "The Dodd-Frank Act is a disastrous policy that's hindering our markets, reducing the availability of credit and crippling our economy's ability to grow and create jobs."
In the meantime, defenders of the Dodd-Frank Act adamantly stress, "It is a critically important bulwark against excessive financial risk-taking and should stay intact."
Let's take a look at what the complicated Dodd-Frank Act actually does. Among several other things, the regulation possesses one overarching intention, and that is to eliminate all perceptions that some megabanks are too large to fail.
However, should these banks fail, they would require another enormous taxpayer bailout because their failing would threaten the collapse of the entire banking system, and potentially produce another sizable financial crisis.
Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act requires banks to hold much more money than they loan out to consumers and businesses. This stipulation resulted in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that attempts to protect consumers from abusive banking products.
In an attempt to keep large banks afloat in the event of a financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act works by requiring banks to have large balance sheets to assist them in case of setbacks. The Act also strives to produce the tightening of some risky mortgages and certain other unregulated banking practices.
Under Dodd-Frank, loans for new homes became harder to obtain. However, as time passed, and financial institutions were able to accumulate more money, banks provided more forms of loans.
INSIDE THE NUMBERS (according to the Federal Reserve):
-Americans currently maintain an average of 992 billion dollars in credit card balances
-There is a record amount in outstanding auto loans, presently about 1.10 trillion dollars
-With the exception of home equity loans, mortgage loans stand at approximately 14.2 trillion dollars
| Author Notes |
Weighing the pros and cons of the Dodd-Frank Act, it is easy to see that the legislation is, as The Donald put it, "a regulatory overreach."
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
(NOTE: This Editorial is directed especially at those who simply can not grasp the concept of why it is so necessary for Muslims from the Select Seven countries be banned from immigrating into the United States. Others should read this information as well for their own knowledge.)
*******************************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************************
I sincerely ask you, "These are the Muslims you want to allow to immigrate into the United States?"
After reading these facts do tell me once again The Donald's ban on the Select Seven should not be immediately implemented and kept permanently in place!
Saydnaya Prison, the main political prison in Syria, has become famously well known as "The Slaughterhouse." And, for very good reasons, because it is there that, according to Amnesty International, 20 to 50 people are hanged each week by the military police of that country.
From March of 2011 to date, these murders exceed more than 13,000 people over the course of that time in what the Syrians call "a calculated campaign of extrajudicial execution." (That number, 13,000, is not a misprint!) Oh, but, please don't take my word for it. Do research this for yourself. The facts are clearly proven.
These massacres were authorized by Senior Syrian officials, particularly their President Bashar Assad, and his deputies.
Lynn Maalouf, the Deputy Director For Research at Amnesty International's regional office in Beirut, Lebanon described the scene this way, "The horrors depicted reveal a hidden, monstrous campaign, authorized at the highest levels of the Syrian government, aimed at {one goal only and that is} crushing any form of dissent within the Syrian population."
Maalouf went on to explain, "These executions take place after a sham trial that lasts over a minute or two minutes, but they are authorized by the highest levels of authority, including the Grand Mufti, a top religious authority in Syria."
The Grand Mufti is the highest official of religious law in a Sunni or Ibadi Muslim country.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres's reaction to this report by Amnesty International expressed he "was horrified" about what was in the report.
United Nations Spokesman Stephane Dujarric added, "We have repeatedly raised serious concerns about the grave violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law in Syria."
In addition to this grievous carnage, according to Amnesty International, there have been at least 35 different methods of torture used in Syrian detention centers with an average of 300 deaths a month resulting from the torture of more than 17,000 people. (This number is also not a misprint.)
Again, I ask, "These are the Muslims you want to allow to immigrate into the United States?"
WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
Get that ban on the Select Seven in place IMMEDIATELY and keep it there PERMANENTLY!
| Author Notes |
Just one classic example of why Muslims must be permanently banned from immigrating into the United States.
There are many others. No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
Throngs of Democrat Party-paid for demonstrators currently fill American streets. But, the Democrats may be well suited to be careful what they wish for.
In 2018, the reality of the matter is projected to be more Democrats will lose their seats in Congress to Republican challengers during the Mid-Term Elections.
The Republicans already outnumber the Democrats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. So, Democrats are, at this moment, facing the realistic possibility that their ranks will shrivel even more, especially in the ten states The Donald won in the Presidential Election.
Another factor favoring the Republicans in the House of Representatives are district boundaries drawn to keep GOP dominance. And, according to Princeton University Neuroscientist and Statistician Sam Wang, "It would take an extreme event" for Democrats to recapture additional seats.
The Democrats currently have paid, full-time, organizers in twenty districts around the United States in an ongoing effort to regain 23 districts where Hillary Clinton defeated The Donald.
Jesse Hunt, the National Republican Congressional Committee Spokesman, stated, "Democrats also held high hopes for 2016, but unseated just four of the fifteen Freshmen Republican Representatives they targeted."
It was during the 2010 Election that Republicans captured more than sixty seats and took control of the House of Representatives, right in the middle of Obama's first term as President. They also won a majority of Governors Offices and state legislative chambers that year.
Democrats, go ahead and keep protesting in the streets. In the long run your actions are more than likely to come back and bite you right smack dab in the middle of your collective butts. Your paid protests may well end up exposing you for exactly what your Party's emblem displays you to be...JACKASSES! Then what? Where will all your paid protesting get you then? Nowhere fast! That's where.
| Author Notes |
Outnumbered in the Senate and the House of Representatives, like little boys who can not get their way, Democrats have taken to paying protestors to demonstrate in the streets of America. But, at what real cost?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Being an Ass, by eileen0204, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks eileen0204, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
KELLYANNE CONWAY:
Counselor to The Donald, Kellyanne Conway is a veteran pollster. She was also Trump's last Campaign Manager, having served in that capacity since the Summer of 2016. Conway is seen as the face of The Donald's Administration. She makes numerous television appearances to promote Trump's agenda. She also advised Vice President Mike Pence when he held the office of Governor of Indiana, and is expected to assist in developing policies on veterans and women's issues.
STEVE BANNON:
Constantly at The Donald's side in the Oval Office, Media Executive Steve Bannon has factored into each major decision Trump has made so far as President. Bannon became Trump's top political advisor in August of 2016. He supplied The Donald's campaign with its anti-establishment passion. Bannon co-wrote The Donald's Inaugural Address. He also assisted in designing actions withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and freezing the refugee program.
REINHOLD RICHARD "REINCE" PRIEBUS:
With close ties to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the former Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is The Donald's Chief of Staff. He focuses most of the time on policy implementation and organization. He has previously served as the Chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, and as the Republican National Committee General Counsel, however, he has never held a major political office. A Washington Insider, Priebus frequently criticized The Donald's policies regarding Muslim immigration, and lectured Trump for forty minutes after The Donald's remarks about illegal Mexican immigrants during the 2016 Presidential Campaign. At one point, he even called for The Donald to drop out of the Presidential Race. According to a December 8, 2016 New York Magazine article his loyalty to Trump has been questioned by other advisers to the President.
STEPHEN MILLER:
The 31-year-young political operative Stephen Miller co-wrote many of The Donald's speeches and policies, as well as his Inaugural Address. He previously served as the Press Secretary for Senator Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Senator John Shadegg of Arizona. He is known for his and Jeff Sessions' "nation-state populism" response to globalization and immigration. Miller joined the Trump campaign after spending time as a top aid to Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the new Attorney General. In that capacity, Miller became The Donald's "Warm-Up Act". After the 2012 Presidential Election, Miller heavily influenced derailing efforts in the Senate to pursue an immigration overhaul. He will head Trump's economic policy team.
JARED KUSHNER:
Regarded as the "First Among Equals," Jared Kushner, who is The Donald's son-in-law, was one of Trump's most powerful campaign advisors during his Presidential campaign. Kushner is also recognized as a calming presence for The Donald and has the last word on Trump's decision-making processes. Previously, Kushner has been a real estate investor and developer, as well as a one-time Publisher of the online New York Observer. Kushner, who is married to Trump's daughter Ivanka, is The Donald's Senior White House Advisor and most trusted ally. He also developed Trump's digital media campaign that is credited as one of the major reasons Trump's bid for the Presidency was successful.
There you have them. What do you think?
| Author Notes |
A brief biography of The Donald's five most influential advisors.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
The Donald's scheduled February 15th first White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is shaping up to be a mutually benefitting affair for both countries.
Netanyahu possesses a long history of siding with the Republicans. However, The Donald is no mainstream Republican. Therefore, Netanyahu will still need to walk carefully, or risk being labeled as endorsing The Donald's policies that are alienating major constituents of the United States and Israel.
Dan Shapiro, the outgoing US Ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration, summed those sentiments up by explaining, "There is a {certain} risk that by {Netanyahu} seeming to associate too closely with certain proposals {The Donald's ban on the Select Seven Muslim countries, for example} and perhaps in some ways with him {Trump} personally, there's an alienation factor for other key {American} constituencies that have been part of the bipartisan pro-Israel coalition. That is something the Prime Minister may want to keep in mind."
(NOTE: Even in The Donald arranging to meet a foreign dignitary, the Democrats still want to constantly stir up the pot and make it appear Trump is an all-around bad person for anybody to associate with.)
On the positive side, The Donald would seem to be more compatible with the Israeli Prime Minister. They seem to have some common ground between them when it comes to Israel building more settlements in their hotly contested West Bank. Another area the two leaders appear to be on the same page about is the American-backed nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers.
Along the lines of West Bank settlement, Netanyahu is expected to ask for guidance from The Donald as to what type of development by Israel the Trump administration will tolerate. Netanyahu may also pursue the movement of the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Netanyahu has already encountered disagreements with The Donald. These were highlighted by a diplomatic incident with Mexico. An event that occurred after he sent a tweet supporting the wall between the United States and Mexico. Netanyahu later apologized for sending that tweet.
Netanyahu's tweet read, "President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel's southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea."
Netanyahu also refused to denounce The Donald's Executive Order banning immigration from the Select Seven. Additionally, he remained silent after several groups of American Jews condemned a White House press release on January 27th, in honor of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, that did not address the six million Jews who suffered in the Holocaust.
The first meeting between the two leaders should be telltale of what may still be to come. Perhaps the best, and still unanswered question remains, what does The Donald desire from Netanyahu and the Israelis?
| Author Notes |
The Donald is preparing to host his first White House meeting with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 15, 2017. To say the least, this should be an interesting occasion.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
This editorial is for those of you who may have been vacationing under a rock last week. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that. I do so myself from time to time.
I just wanted to take this opportunity to make you aware of recent roundups of illegal immigrants. Yes, The Donald's ban on the Select Seven is being hotly contested. And, as I have repeatedly stated in several of my previous postings concerning this matter, I believe that ban should be permanently installed. However, here is the flavor-of-the-day in that arena.
Amid circulating rumors in the illegal immigration community of "randomly stopping people at checkpoints," and "conducting sweeps of areas where illegal immigrants commonly hide out," agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, popularly known as ICE, have been busy targeting compliance with established protocols.
ICE's Southern Region Communications Director Bryan Cox dispelled those aforementioned rumors by explaining, "ICE conducts targeted immigration enforcement in compliance with federal laws and agency policies. ICE does not conduct sweeps or raids that target aliens indiscriminately."
With more than 200 illegal immigrants arrested, and 160 detained, last week's targeted enforcements were conducted in large metropolitan areas including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta.
These actions by ICE prompted the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, an organization governed by the rules of the House of Representatives, that voices issues affecting Hispanics and Latinos in the United States and Puerto Rico, to demand a meeting with Thomas Homan, the Acting Head of ICE.
For those illegal immigrants who sneak into the US without inspection, they have committed a misdemeanor. They can also be criminally charged if they present fake identification documents coming across the American border.
In light of The Donald's ban on the Select Seven, how many of you can honestly say you were aware that these roundups by ICE even occurred under Obama's Administration? And, since the Democrats were in power at that time, no one raised any kind of objections about them. Did they?
Now that the Republicans control the federal government, all of a sudden people want to SCREAM about them. Peculiar situation, isn't it?
Also, under Obama's regime, priority deportations were established for immigrants who committed murder, certain drug offenses, gang involvements, and violent crimes. All areas The Donald's ban on the Select Seven covered. Explain the difference between the two of them, if you can?
Of course, these legal roundups by ICE have led to misinformed immigration rights activists, you know, certain Special Interests groups, calling attention to them.
For instance, Atlanta immigration attorney Sarah Owings proclaimed, "It's very chilling for the community."
And, Angelica Salas, the Executive Director of the Coalition For Human Immigration Rights of Los Angeles skeptically chimed in with, "ICE wants us to believe they have removed a bunch of felons who were just plotting their next crime."
While bashing The Donald for every little move he makes is currently in vogue, as long as ICE is properly doing the job the American people want them to do, illegal immigrants will continue to be rounded up like stray cattle and deported out of the United States. (MOO!!!!!)
Confidentially, I don't know about you, but I am all for anything that makes America a better, safer, place to enjoy life!
| Author Notes |
Illegal immigrant roundups by ICE continue. I say may they be long lasting!
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
In the short 23 calendar days that Donald Trump has been the President of the United States, Toyota, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing have all been on the receiving end of one of The Donald's heated twitter tirades.
Additionally, prior to The Donald's first White House meeting with his business forum, Travis Kalanick, the CEO of Uber, the ride-share company, resigned from Trump's business council. The reason he provided was because he felt his presence on the council was being viewed as an endorsement of The Donald.
It used to take careful and long deliberations between a company's lawyers, lobbyists, public relations team, and leadership for a business to get involved in the political spectrum. However, under The Donald's regime, those days may be over and companies may be forced to move swiftly when determining their involvement in politics.
"Each business now has to look at where their customer fits into the political divide and how their company values align to what the President is doing on a day-to-day basis," is how Crisis Communications Advisor Matt Friedman explained the situation. He further elaborated with, "You have to understand your customers in real time because political ramifications are happening instantly."
A direct route for companies to express their opinions to the President, being a member of a high-profile White House council has always been noted as a prestigious symbol. However, because of the high intensity divisiveness caused by The Donald's presidency, that view may be undergoing radical change. Many Americans are currently refusing to conduct business transactions with any company perceived to support The Donald.
One of the most vocal opponents to Trump is the twitter hash-tag known as #GrabYourWallet. This online propaganda encourages boycotts of businesses supporting The Donald, and their three largest victims so far have been Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, and Ivanka Trump's line of fashion.
Shannon Coulter, the lead organizer of #GrabYourWallet seems to have attacked Ivanka Trump simply because she is The Donald's daughter. Calling them "flip-the-table moments," Coulter refers to her twitter actions on #GrabYourWallet as an effort to create bad business publicity for companies perceived by her to support The Donald.
Protesting in the streets of America? (Most of it paid for by the Democrats, by the way). Boycotting businesses that provide the illusion of supporting The Donald? Where will all this insanity cease?
When companies make any type of move that could be construed as supporting The Donald they risk losing business to boycotts by customers opposed to Trump. The same is true if they appear to be anti-Trump. Then, they risk financial losses from pro-Trump supporters. This places companies in new vulnerabilities and in the long run these effects on businesses are difficult to predict.
Perhaps the biggest anxiety major company CEOs are stressing over is, as Robert Passikoff, the Brand Keys Incorporated President asserted, "The direct communication from the President of the United States {via twitter} with attacks on specific brands and specific people is not something we've ever seen before."
Editorial Notes:
Time will tell how all this attack-counter attack in the business world plays out. In the meantime, fellow Americans, isn't now when you should get your act together, pull your heads out of the sand where you have it buried like an ostrich in heat, and wrap your minds around the concept that for better or for worse The Donald is the President of the United States?
You know, this whole divisiveness fever sweeping the United States reminds me so much of little boys on the playground, the ones who say, "If you won't let me win I'm going to take my toys and go home!"
America we are so much better than all this ridiculousness.
***Next time: Postal Service Reform Act of 2017
| Author Notes |
The divisiveness sweeping the United States has also filtered down into the business world.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
We enter the 2157 Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, D.C. Here, we find ourselves in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Room.
We must remain very, very quiet as we notice the Democrats and the Republicans going out of their way to congratulate members of their opposite political parties.
The reason for this festivity is all the hard work they have put forward to salvage the United States Postal Service from certain financial ruin.
Stop the presses! The GOP and the Democrats can actually work together to solve a crisis situation? That, in itself, is cause for celebrating.
For many years the USPS has petitioned Congress for financial assistance with a bleak condition that postal unions, Congressional representatives, and others agreed was extremely grim. That aid appears to have been provided by the Postal Service Reform Act of 2017. What is that, you may be wondering?
Utah Republican Representative Jason E. Chaffetz, the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, eagerly explains to us, "We're faced with ten consecutive years of financial losses at the Postal Service, totaling some 62 billion {dollars}. The United States Postal Service isn't at "a" crossroads, it's at "the" crossroads!"
He further elaborates, "We're actually going to get to the finish line and get a bill on the President's desk. I'd like to see that as a bipartisan reform proposal that we can all get behind and champion."
What the Postal Service Reform Act of 2017 will accomplish, as it is currently written, is to deal with health benefits for postal employees, retirees, pensions, governance, and contracting. It will also require postal retirees to participate in Medicare.
Megan Brennan, the first female Postmaster General of the United States, then informs us, "That would essentially eliminate our unfunded liability for retiree health benefits."
However, this proposal, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2017, was strongly objected to by the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, who claimed there would be a 134-dollar a month premium increase in Medicare for postal retirees.
"All for health insurance coverage many postal retirees do not want, may not be able to afford, and have previously chosen not to take," The Association's President, Richard G. Thissen, wrote in a letter to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The Postal Service Reform Act of 2017 will also increase the price of a First Class stamp by one penny. Additionally, delivery areas for housing developments, where forty percent or more of the residents agree to it, will have their mail delivered to a cluster box. The disabled can obtain a waiver for this requirement.
Local Post Offices will also be closed based on such factors as the availability of broadband Internet services, weather, terrain, and the distance to the next nearest Post Office location. However, Saturday mail delivery will not be ended by this piece of legislation.
As we depart the Hearing Room, somebody yells, "Don't forget to turn off the lights!"
And, all I can say is, "Here we go again!"
***Next Time: Democrats - The New Radicals
| Author Notes |
One more time the USPS is needing a bailout to stay afloat.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
He may have served his country well, rising through the military ranks to achieve the Army's third-highest rating of Lieutenant General. But, he ended his public service career as the 25th National Security Advisor after just 24 days. The least amount of time anybody has ever held that position.
History will now remember him as a disgraced, proven liar! I guess perhaps he should have listened a lot more closely when his mama told him to always tell the truth. GASP! The shame of it all!
On the sixth day of his young Presidency, The Donald was made aware that Michael Flynn lied about his Russian contacts. What did The Donald do about the allegations? He kept his Vice President, Mike Pence, in the dark. Ever want to know how to grow a mushroom? Feed it bull and keep it in the blind.
Three-hundred-and-thirty-six hours later, The Donald finally ousted the deceiver. Why? Because of the "erosion of trust". Come on! Really? It took fourteen days and nights to finally come to the conclusion Michael Flynn was deceitful? Sell those wolf tickets to someone who will purchase them!
It was Flynn's phone calls with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to the United States, that his deceit centered around. It also drew attention from law enforcement personnel, namely the FBI.
However, the listed cause of Flynn's dismissal was that he "misled the Vice President as well as other Aides of the President about the nature of those telephone conversations."
This does not include he potentially violated a rarely enforced federal law, dealing with the illegal disclosure of America's economic sanctions, with the Russians before The Donald' Inauguration occurred.
After listening to those conversations through legal secret recordings by US Intelligence sources, White House officials have stated they discovered no crimes were committed. Pass the butter and smooth that one over why don't you!
Although White House Spokesman Sean Spicer offered an explanation for these events, apparently it did not go far enough for many people. It certainly failed to answer several key questions including how come The Donald allowed Flynn to keep accessing classified information and taking part in Presidential discussions with world leaders up to the day he was axed?
Spicer's comments also did not acknowledge why The Donald did not alert the Vice President to the situation at hand. Should a leader not always keep his second-in-command well informed about issues like this one?
And, It indubitably did not expound on why The Donald's Counselor, Kellyanne Conway, declared the President retained, as she put it, "full confidence in Flynn" right up to the time he asked him to resign.
Obviously, Vice President Pence was angry about the whole ordeal, particularly since he supported Flynn.
Spicer's comments were, "The evolving and eroding level of trust as a result of this situation is what led the President to ask General Flynn for his resignation."
For the Democrats, Flynn's resignation has, of course, stoked the fires about The Donald's presumed friendliness with the Russians. It has also led to Senator Lindsey Graham, the Senior Senator from South Carolina, to assert, "Congress needs to know whether Flynn was acting alone, or if he was conducting these discussions with the Russians under the guidance of the President?"
The only way to clear this whole grievance up is for those possessing full knowledge of this occurrence to come forward and provide details of what they are enlightened with. Does anybody out there earnestly believe that is going to happen? Does anybody remember Watergate?
Michel T. Flynn, YOU'RE FIRED!
| Author Notes |
In 24 days The Donald's choice for National Security Advisor, Michael T. Flynn, proved his true colors and himself to be a liar. He is also the first one of The Donald's Administration to be told "YOU'RE FIRED!" Who's next?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
Two main factors have diminished the Democrats to not much of anything remaining and left them in shambles. The first was the eight disastrous years of Kenya's Favorite Son, Barack Obama's sham of a Presidency. The other was the fiasco of the criminal Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential campaign and its now infamous results.
In the opinion of this Writer, as well as countless others, Clinton's illegal actions should have resulted in a lengthy prison sentence. Remember certain emails and the Benghazi Affair? This may be another wrong The Donald will have to right. A tempting proposition!
With nothing to gain, at least for the next couple of years, because they are outnumbered in the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, the Democrats have taken to protesting in the streets of America like a lost, lonely, voice crying in the vast wilderness.
These protests have included chanting airport factions screaming against The Donald's immigration plan for banning the Select Seven, and marches of women opposed to what they perceive as Trump's feminist remarks. This is the foundation the Democrats have selected to attempt to rebuild the remnants of their future with.
They have also exposed the Democrats as the liberals they have always been and their name implies. Do remember, it is the Democrats, not the Democratic Party. There is a humongous difference between the two. However, splinter groups of the Democrats, ruptured and isolated as their political party has become, are attempting to appeal to both the White working-class suburbanites and the young urbanites.
The Democrats protesting, viewed in a certain light under a high-powered microscope, conceivably have achieved an infinitesimal amount of success by disruptive tactics. These include Senate hearing boycotts of The Donald's Cabinet nominees, although, slowly but surely, these nominees are still being confirmed to the positions The Donald wants them in.
Some Democrats believe these tactics are far too liberal for their party. They also fear the results of the 2018 Mid-Term Senate contests. Especially those in states The Donald won in the 2016 Presidential Election. For good reason too. Early projections show the Democrats will lose these seats to Republican opponents when all is said and done.
Comparing the dire straits of the current political mess the Democrats find themselves in, Howard Dean, the Former Chairman of the Democrats, lamented, "They {the Democrats} can't figure out how to hand this {the exchange of power to the Republicans} off to the next generation. The time for that is at hand."
Protesting in the streets may well consume the Democrats as a political party. If the 2018 Mid-Term Election centers around national issues it could seriously hamper the Democrats, particularly in the states of West Virginia, Montana, North Dakota and Missouri.
Democrats are also fearful of the fact protestors demand they become even more liberal than they are already known to be. This could seriously impede their candidate's support, especially among more moderate voters.
Another recent action by the Democrats, many of them believe could come back to nip them in the bud, were the emails some Democrats wrote condemning Neil Gorsuch. The Donald's nominee for Supreme Court Justice. These demeaning emails appeared almost immediately after the announcement was made.
Another cause of concern for the Democrats was their lack of a credible message for Hillary Clinton. However, this proved to be the least of her problems, and only one small reason why she lost the 2016 Presidential Election. Her lack of trustworthiness was verified to be the main culprit for her defeat.
The Democrats now realize political elections are won by candidates who possess emotions and passionate positions on the issues. Two of the most obvious calling cards The Donald has displayed.
| Author Notes |
Reduced to not much of anything remaining of their party, the Democrats are wandering, looking for a new identity, so they are not just a lonely voice crying in the vast wilderness of American politics. Some political analysts believe they may never recover again as a major political entity.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
With the Affordable Care Act facing an uncertain future, lobbyists for the health insurance industry have increased their efforts to ensure their preferred policy changes occur. Of special interest is providing enough health insurance operatives to educate administration officials, White House staffers, and lawmakers about the impact changing the law could impose.
Some health care watchdogs worry that deep-pocketed insurers will manipulate the system to increase their profits and, once again, consumers will be the ones who suffer from changes to the legislation. Isn't that just politics as usual and the way it always happens?
In 2016, health, auto, and life insurance companies spent in excess of 147 million dollars on lobbying. Additionally, they contributed more than 70 million dollars in various political contributions.
Companies that provide insurance to individuals have the stated goals of raising rates for older enrollees and retaining federal subsidies for plan members. They will attempt to achieve these targets through favorable regulation, revisions of the Affordable Care Act, and measures to guide repealing the Act.
University of Kansas Political Science Professor Burdett Loomis, a recognized expert on Congressional lobbying, stated, "It's not just insurers looking for extra help. Expect securities, banking, and energy interests to "lobby up" as well under the business-friendly Trump administration."
Jeff M. Myers, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Medicaid Health Plans of America, who covers 73 percent of Medicaid enrollees, remarked, "We're entering into rare uncharted waters and we really need to dramatically increase our bandwidth."
Medicaid Health Plans of America desires to improve access to substance abuse and mental health services. They also want to lower the Medicaid program's prescription drug costs, and lower the expense of customers enrolling in both Medicare and Medicaid.
Actions by these Special Interest groups could significantly determine the Affordable Care Act's future and have startling affects on millions of American lives. This would include the possibility of losing coverage if Medicaid expansion is stopped. Higher prices for consumers, and diminished coverage for those who need it the most, are other potential results.
One of the largest lobbying groups is Blue Cross and Blue Shield, who's 39 independent companies cover almost 98 million people. Blue Cross and Blue Shield has also spent more than 25 million dollars on lobbying activities.
When all is said and done, don't be surprised if what replaces the Affordable Care Act is an extremely watered-down version of what the law was intended to be. If it becomes that, you can thank Special Interest groups for the damage caused by their meddling into it.
| Author Notes |
Special Interest groups are the major reason why very little of nothing ever actually gets accomplished in Washington, D.C.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
In Brussels, Belgium, an ultimatum was presented to American Allies to increase their military spending by the end of 2017 or see the United States conceivably curtail its defense support of the other 27 members of NATO.
"Americans can not care more for your children's future safety than you do," Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis informed the Defense Ministers of these North American and European countries. He added, "No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of Western values." And, why should they?
With Europe's deeply rooted uneasiness over possible US and Russian relations, the NATO Allies clung on to Mattis' every word. Or, so it appeared. Many of them clustered around the Secretary of Defense's televised first encounter with Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO, as he spoke.
Without providing any details, Mattis additionally informed NATO Allies the United States will "Moderate its commitment to the alliance if those countries fail to fall in line."
Eastern European nations who feel threatened by Russian expansion are sure to strongly perceive this pressure from Mattis' comments. Like many others, they question The Donald's avoidance of criticizing Russia for its 2014 annexation of the Ukraine's Crimean Region. They are also unsecure after The Donald repeatedly heaped praiseful comments on Vladimir Putin, the Russian President.
For its part, Russia may well be testing America's resolve by recently firing a cruise missile in direct violation of a Cold War-era nuclear arms control treaty. Russia has also backed a separatist insurgency in the Ukraine, where sporadic violence has occurred.
Mattis then cited what he referred to as the "political reality in Washington," and a "fair demand," both apparent references to The Donald's "America First" manta (as well it should be.)
These Russian actions further prompted Mattis to warn NATO Allies they must produce a plan that establishes set dates for their governments to fund a military goal of two percent of their gross domestic product intake. This is the market value of all domestic goods and services they produce in a year's time.
The Donald has previously challenged the European nations. He has indicated America may not defend those Allies unwilling to meet their financial obligations as members of NATO. Granted, there are many European countries that are experiencing slow economies, and the belt-tightening that goes along with it, who seem hostile to being required to spend more on their militaries. But, if they are not willing to properly help defend themselves why should the full burden continue to constantly fall on the American taxpayer?
Statistics show that the United States committed 3.61 percent of its 2016 Gross Domestic Product on military spending. Eleven NATO countries spend less than 1.2 percent in that arena. Greece, who is debt-ridden, Estonia, Britain, and Poland are currently the only other NATO countries at the required 2.0 percent threshold or above.
So, once again I ask, "Is NATO "obsolete," as The Donald phrased his description of the alliance? Or, is it a "fundamental bedrock for the United States" as Secretary of Defense Mattis labeled the organization?"
| Author Notes |
Is NATO a bedrock the United States should continue to support or has it become obsolete?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
Slanting stories, whether reporting the truth or not, in order to garnish the largest share of the viewing audience, or to sell the highest number of copies, has historically been a low most major media has far too often stooped to. However, reporting the truth is not just a number's game.
A recent example of this was major media's bootlicking coverage of Hillary Clinton, in which they attempted to portray the untrustworthy criminal as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Another instance was major media's anti-Donald Trump rhetoric, in which they continuously attempted to rip him apart over every breath he took during the 2016 Presidential campaign.
The results of the election were not those major media expected and they are still trying to understand what they did so terribly wrong. Is major media really that ignorant?
Major media desires to blame Fox News, talk radio, and the voters. Everybody but themselves. They just can not seem to grasp the reality that it was their efforts that contributed a significant amount to The Donald gaining the Presidency.
What major media is suffering from today can best be described as denial. The kind where the afflicted person faces a fact that is too overwhelming to accept and rejects it instead, going so far as to insist the fact can not possibly be true despite the overwhelming evidence that it is.
The Donald's election to the Presidency of the United States has created another issue for major media as well. For eight years major media ignored lies throughout the sham that was Barack Obama's Presidency. A stain that tarnished the White House. Now, major media is left constantly reporting "fake news." This is living proof of their denial condition.
Give major media its due though. For eight years major media flat out ignored constant lying by the Democrats, including Harry Reid's fabrications about Mitt Romney not paying his taxes. This deliberate misleading, from Barack Obama all the way down through his administration, has finally ceased. Now, it appears major media has woken up and become much more interested in pursuing the truth.
Harry Reid attempted to brush the lies he told about Romney not paying his taxes off with a simple, "I did what was necessary to defeat Romney in the 2012 Presidential Race." These were the Obama Democrats? The ones who screwed America up for eight torturously long years and left it in the extremely weakened condition The Donald has inherited it in.
Ted Koppel, the former host of the ABC television program known as "Nightline," and a highly respected News Reporter, believes "Democracy depends on facts". It does.
In the current age of relativity, it seems the standards by which truth was once measured has disappeared. This is primarily major media's fault line.
Koppel explained that notion by stating, "There may be some temporary political advantage to be gained by tearing down public confidence in critical, nonpartisan journalism, but it is only temporary. At some point or another, everyone needs professional finders of facts."
A hard lesson major media must relearn. They also need to know lies in reporting will not re-earn them the public's trust. Until major media comes to these realizations their credibility will continue to plummet. An undesirable result of major media's own making.
| Author Notes |
For more than eight years, major media has fabricated, and continues to report, fake news, lies, and flat out deceit. It is time for them to wake up and smell the reality in a story before they report it.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
Before he assumed the office of the President of the United States, The Donald stated he would manufacture a wall between himself and the five hundred businesses that made him a billionaire. Do not misunderstand the situation. Legally, he did not have to do so.
Controlled by his oldest son Donald John Trump, Junior, and Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's Chief Financial Officer, the Trust he created for that purpose declares The Donald to be the sole beneficiary of the Trust.
The investigative news service known as La Republica has obtained documents through public record searches, that illustrate The Donald maintains the legal power to revoke that Trust any time he may well choose to do so.
Filed with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board in the nation's capitol, that oversees the liquor licenses at the Trump International Hotel Washington. D.C., these documents demonstrate the business changeover between The Donald and his son.
These documents, filed one day before The Donald assumed the Presidency, outline the purpose of the Trust is, "to hold assets for the exclusive benefit of Donald J. Trump." This could be viewed as a questionable, and marginally slim, ethics maneuver.
Why? Because The Donald retains ownership of the hotel and will personally benefit if the business profits from decisions he makes as the President are favorable to the hotel. Remember, The Donald is perfectly within his rights to run his businesses if he so decides to at the same time he is the President. There is nothing wrong with that picture.
The Trump Organization will continue to be operated by Trump's sons Eric and Donald, Junior. They are also some of the most trusted characters of his inner circle.
At the time of taking these actions, The Donald explained, "What I'm going to be doing is my two sons, who are right here, Don and Eric, are going to be running the company. They are going to be running it in a very professional manner. They're not going to discuss it with me." (Right! When pigs fly!)
Another action this Trust does not disclose is The Donald's Executive Producer title for the popular NBC-TV program known as "Celebrity Apprentice". Representatives of that national television station have not stated whether The Donald will be compensated for his role. Does anybody out there have the slightest doubt whether he will be or not?
Again, there is nothing illegal about The Donald running his business empire at the same time he is the President of the United States nor Is it a violation of any ethics. Anybody in his position would be tempted to do the same thing.
| Author Notes |
Donald Trump has taken several steps to separate himself from his business empire while he is serving as the President of the United States. One of them is a Trust that has been created to benefit only him.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to compliment my Essay. So, thank Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
According to Alexey Kovalev, "{It was} like they flipped a switch." He is a journalist covering Russian state media for the Moscow Times newspaper.
What Kovalev was referring to was The Donald's suddenly disappearing from the evening news, and talk shows, closely associated with the Russian political agenda. The obvious reason for this turn of events is The Donald seeking to alienate himself from the Kremlin.
Here are some noticeable differences that have recently been picked up along those lines:
-The Donald has hardened his tone on Russia's occupation of the Crimean Peninsula
-The firing of ex-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who appeared to be sympathetic towards the Russians
-The Donald has accused Russia of meddling in elections in a variety of countries
-The Trump Administration accusing Russia of test-firing a cruise missile in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
American Intelligence agencies remain under the impression Russian hackers tampered with the election results of the 2016 Presidential Race because Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, believed The Donald would be more friendlier to Moscow.
Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis stated, "Washington should negotiate with Russia from a position of strength." Moscow tembled at his comments. (They did not like them at all)
In response to Mattis' remarks, Vladimir Posner, a prominent Russian television journalist lamented, "There is disappointment for many people {namely the Russians}."
Posner then questioned, "Why did {Trump} lie to us? Why did he make us think that he wants things to get better?" (Any question from who's perspective that remark is coming from?)
Initially, The Donald's election to the Presidency made the Russians very happy. It also meant that Hillary Clinton, a long-time adversary of Vladimir Putin's, would not hold the office of the President of the United States.
The Russians had desired, with Clinton out of the picture, to consolidate their power within the confines of their country. Now, through tough US discussions towards Russia, by The Donald, American military forces, and diplomats, the Russians realize their vaunted goals will not be so easy to accomplish.
Awww! The poor little babies! RIGHT!!!!!!
| Author Notes |
Russia is crying the blues because The Donald is not in their back pocket as they hoped he would be.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
This is an Editorial:
I have previously stated my opinion on this topic quite clearly several times before. So, all I will say is, "Here The Donald goes again." Perhaps this time the program will be much more successful!
Under a sweeping rewrite of American policies by The Donald's Administration, illegal immigrants now face rapid deportation from out of the United States for crimes as minimal as a traffic ticket.
All illegal immigrants suspected of any criminal offense, charged with a crime, or convicted of committing criminal activities, become enforcement priorities. That could possibly include shoplifters as well as petty law breakers. This announcement was proclaimed, courtesy of memos signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly.
No longer do illegal immigrants have to be viewed as a threat to national security, be recent border crossers, or even convicted of a serious crime, to face the very real probability of imminent deportation.
It is about high time the United States took these steps to keep illegal immigrants in their own countries, where they should feel free to commit their criminal acts, instead of perpetrating them on American soil.
Crossing the border illegally is a crime, and grounds for deportation. Overstaying a visa is a civil infraction, however, those immigrants that do so are now much more likely to be deported back to whence them came.
The new enforcement plans for illegal immigrants from the Secretary of Homeland Security are designed to enforce a longstanding provision of immigration law that permits the United States to send illegal immigrants crossing the border back to Mexico regardless of where they are from. You read that right. Because of signed treaties between the United States and Mexico, these illegal immigrants could be from Timbuktu and deported to Mexico.
Once there, these illegal immigrants would await deportation proceedings to be completed. A move that could conceivably render years to finalize. Rumor has it, the Donald may plan to withhold financial aid to Mexico to ensure that country lives up to its agreements in these treaties in accepting illegal immigrants, even the non-Mexicans. Whatever it takes.
One of the first groups to be targeted are illegal immigrants who can not prove they have been in the United States for 24 months or longer. These fast-track deportations do not require a judge's order.
Another plan in the works for The Donald's Administration is to expand the immigration jail capacity that currently possesses funding and allotted spaces for 34,000 detainees at one time. The Republican Congress would have to approve all new monies the Department of Homeland Security spends on this project.
Of course, the Special Interest group known as the American Civil Liberties Union is up in arms about these new implementations pertaining to illegal immigrants. This point was illustrated by the Director of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project Omar Jadwat.
Judwat exclaimed, "These memos confirm that the Trump Administration is willing to trample on due process, human decency, the well being of our communities, and even protection for vulnerable children, in pursuit of a hyper-aggressive mass deportation policy." (Give me a break!)
Texas Representative Lamar Smith, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, lauded The Donald's efforts with these Homeland Security memos when he stated, "{the memos} overturn dangerous policies from the Obama Administration."
These policies do not affect the more than 750,000 young immigrants enrolled in the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals program, and shoot holes in Judwat's remarks. The exception to this policy would be if these young immigrants are deemed to be threats to national security or commit crimes. At that point, they need to be deported, along with all the other illegal immigrants running amok across the United States.
Do other countries allow illegal immigrants to enter their boundaries, break their laws, and escape unscathed? You better believe the answer to that question is a resounding NO! Then, why should the United States be expected to allow them to do what no other country permits?
Under the Obama Administration there were more than 100,000 illegal immigrant children, mainly from the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that were caught at the border. The bleeding-heart Democrats reunited a vast majority with relatives residing in the United States regardless of the immigrant's status, legal or not. A direct violation of American immigration laws.
The new Homeland Security memos seek 5,000 new Border Patrol agents and 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. (Oh, to be thirty years younger than I am. I would have already applied for one of these positions! Or, the 2,000 current vacancies that exist.) When The Donald claimed he would create more American jobs he meant what he said. There's 15,000 new ones needing to be filled. Let's get them filled!
EDITORIAL COMMENT: Walk into a crowded room of Mexicans anywhere in the United States. Yell, "INS!" See how many scatter to the winds by any means possible. That classically illustrates the illegal immigration problem facing the United States.
Maybe with the enforcement of the immigration laws that have always been on the books, and enforced, but not to the point The Donald has committed to, some of that problem will finally work itself out.
We can only hope!
NOTE: I have now written 42 daily Editorials about The Donald. Some things he says and does I agree with. Case in point, this being one of them. Other things he says and does, I could not disagree more with.
I receive many comments from those who read these postings, and yes, I do accept comments from those who agree with what I say as well as from those who do not agree with my points of view.
However, as a general rule I do not promote my writings, not even this book. This is more because of limited time constraints I have with my Freelance Writing, where I make my living.
So, in order to receive each new chapter on a daily basis, you would need to become a fan.
All are welcome to do so, if you so desire.
| Author Notes |
In case you have not guessed it, deporting illegal immigrants, especially those who enter the United States and break our laws, refuse to abide by our standards, and are handed everything life has to offer on a silver platter, at the expense of law-abiding, hardworking, Americans, who then do without, is one issue I completely and totally support The Donald on.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
(Language warning placed on this Editorial because it addresses the issue of transgenders and which pot they are required to go to the restroom in.)
My wise, dear, sweet, Mother always told me you have to have a pot to pee in. She was right, like she always was.
For transgenders, the question is which pot?
Coming down in favor of States' rights, and lifting overreaching Obama-era federal guidelines, certain bans on transgenders of both persuasions, male and female, have been eliminated by The Donald. Of particular note is that these students must use school bathrooms and locker rooms that match the biological sex they were born.
Essentially, what discarding these federal protections does is place the ball squarely in the court of state and school districts to interpret national anti-discrimination laws and decide if their students have access to restrooms that match their expressed gender identities.
Betsy DeVoe, the Secretary of Education, summed it up by saying, "Schools, communities and families can find, and in many cases have found, solutions that protect all children."
Undoubtedly, the Democrats will scream long and loud about The Donald removing these protections. The cold, hard, truth is the Democrats need to wake up, and smell the reality, that they were the ones who created this issue in the first place. There is no denying that occurrence.
Part of the reason The Donald suspended these federal protections was in response to the thirteen states that sued the OBAMA, not the TRUMP, Administration. Another reason was the fact a federal judge in Texas levied a temporary hold on the OBAMA, that for the sake of the Democrats is O-B-A-M-A, guidance shortly after it was issued.
Additionally, OBAMA policy carried no force of law. It also violated the safety and privacy of other students not of the transgender nature. Especially, girls who did not feel safe changing clothes, or using the restroom, next to hormone-raging, anatomical males.
Randi Weingarten, the President of the American Federation of Teachers labor union, bemoaned The Donald's decision to void these precautions by claiming, "Reversing this guidance tells trans kids that it's ok with the Trump Administration and the Department of Education for them to be abused and harassed at school for being trans."
Oh really, Weingarten? Then, after you come back down to Earth from whatever solar system you are currently drifting away in, perhaps you should shed a little light on why a joint letter from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice reads in part, "All schools must ensure that all (inside scoop for you Weingarten, that's A-L-L students,) including LGBT students are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment." And, your answer would be?
Lifting these federal precautions also places the matter at the local level...where it can most effectively be handled.
Vicki Wilson, a member of the Special Interest group known as Students And Parents For Privacy, echoed this sentiment with, "Our daughters should never be forced to share private, intimate, spaces with male classmates, even if these young men are struggling with these issues. It violates their right to privacy and harms their dignity."
Without providing sufficient explanation for its interpretation of the law the OBAMA Administration based its ruling on its determination that Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education also applied to gender identity.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions remarked, "Congress, state legislatures and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate policies or laws addressing this issue,"
Fifteen states have explicit protections for transgender students contained in their state laws. Several other states have policies in place that cover transgender students. North Carolina has a law on its books restricting access to restrooms in government-owned buildings to the sex appearing on a person's birth certificate. As well it should be. Ten other states are considering similar legislation.
Male or female, you are what you are born. Just because you choose to claim to identify with being a member of the opposite sex, does not necessarily, in the eyes of the law any way, mean you are.
| Author Notes |
The capitalization of Obama's name throughout this Editorial was intentionally done to stress his actions and to indicate they were not The Donald's doing.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
Calling him "A man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience," The Donald has named Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster to become his new National Security Advisor. McMaster is a well known creative thinker and military strategist.
In accepting the position, McMaster stated he, "looks forward to doing everything that I can to advance and protect the interests of the American people."
Along with Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, McMaster becomes the third high-ranking military officer in The Donald's Administration.
Considering Trump possesses no military or foreign policy experience, surrounding himself with highly knowledgable advisors in these key areas is an exceptional decision for The Donald to make.
McMaster, who has served for almost 33 years in the United States Army, plans to remain on Active Duty and lead the National Security Council. The Donald will move Keith Kellogg into the role of the Chief of Staff of the National Security Council.
McMaster holds a Doctorate Degree in history from the University of North Carolina. He is also the author of the 1997 book entitled "Dereliction of Duty". This book slams the US government for what he sees as their mishandling of the Vietnam War. Additionally, "Dereliction of Duty" analyzes what McMaster refers to as "the lies that led to Vietnam."
Currently serving as the Director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center at Fort Eustis, Virginia, as well as the Deputy Commanding General, Futures, US Army Training and Doctrine Command, McMaster commanded American soldiers in Desert Shield/Desert Storm in Iraq in 1991.
In that conflict he was heavily involved in a memorable tank battle known as the Battle For 73 Easting. This conflict saw nine American tanks destroy more than eighty outdated Iraqi tanks and other pieces of military equipment.
(As a proud veteran of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, I can attest firsthand as to the horrendous condition the Iraqi tanks, and other military equipment, they fought against us was in. And, no, for those of you who may be wondering, I did not know McMaster. He was in a different unit than I was assigned to.)
As the Commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, McMaster also saw military action in Operation Enduring Freedom, where he was involved in contesting the insurgency that followed the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. McMaster was also involved in conflict in capturing Tal Afar, Iraq, during Operation Restoring Freedom.
Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain reflected on McMaster by saying, "I have had the honor of knowing McMaster for many years and he is a man of genuine intellect, character, and ability."
Perhaps McMaster's tenure as the National Security Advisor will last longer than the 24 days his predecessor, Michael Flynn's did?
| Author Notes |
The Donald has named Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond "H.R" McMaster as his newest National Security Advisor.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
"HORRIBLE...PAINFUL!" These were the chosen words The Donald employed to describe eleven recently phoned-in bomb threats against Jewish community centers around the United States. He also proclaimed, "More must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil."
The Donald's remarks were made at the National Museum of African-American History and Culture in Washington, D.C. After his visitation of the museum, with Doctor Ben Carson, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development was completed, The Donald stated he found the museum to be, "a meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance and hatred in all of its very ugly forms."
(SPECIAL NOTE: The Museum of African-American History and Culture displays an exhibit of Carson's rise from poverty to prominent pediatric neurosurgeon.)
In addition to the bomb threats against Jewish community centers, there were two hundred headstones damaged or knocked over in Saint Louis, Missouri at a Jewish cemetery. This cowardly act brought these comments from The Donald, "The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centers are horrible and are painful and a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil."
The Donald's comments followed a White House denouncement of hatred and hate-motivated violence. Trump went on to state, "{he is} the least anti-Semitic person that you've ever seen in your entire life."
Ivanka Trump, who converted to Judaism before her 2009 marriage to Jared Kushner, added on twitter, "We must protect our houses of worship and religious centers."
The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and the FBI, are joining together to investigate what they termed, "possible civil rights violations in connection with these threats."
EDITORIAL COMMENT: Although the Jewish people have always been subjugated to acts of random violence the world over, people who stoop to lows such as this should be dealt with in the harshest manner permitted by the law.
| Author Notes |
Unwarranted attacks against the Jews is nothing new. However, those who provoke these acts should be swiftly and harshly dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
Is there a new major political party on the rise in the United States? Stephen Bannon, the reclusive Chief Strategist of The Donald's Administration, would probably want you to believe so.
The intellectual force behind The Donald's nationalist agenda constantly refers to this organization as the "Opposition Party". He also references major media, and other globalist entities, as being in a battle against the Trump Administration to deconstruct what Bannon terms, "an outdated system of government."
At a gathering of conservative activists, Bannon affirmed that, "They {The Donald's Administration} will continue to fight against the Opposition Party" he believes is standing in the way of Trump's agenda.
It was during an interview conducted by Matt Schlapp, the President of the American Conservative Union, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, that Bannon elaborated, "If you think they {the media} are giving you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken."
He further explained, "Atop the President's agenda is the deconstruction of the administrative state {meaning a system of taxes, regulations and trade pacts} that the President and his advisors believe stymie economic growth and infringe upon our sovereignty."
Bannon continued his comments by stating, "If you look at these Cabinet nominees, they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction."
Then he quipped, "They're {major media} our corporatists, global media that are adamantly opposed to an economic nationalist agenda like Donald Trump has."
Bannon explained, "If you look at the Opposition Party, and how they portrayed the campaign {The Donald's 2016 Presidential Campaign}, and how they portrayed the transition, and how they portrayed {The Donald's} Administration in its first month, in everything that you're {the American public} is reading, it's always wrong."
Reince Priebus, the White House Chief of Staff, echoed Bannon's remarks by stating, "Journalists now feed ridiculous stories about all we do every day, and all President Trump does every day is hit his agenda, every single day."
Bannon added, "All of Trump's campaign promises would be implemented in short order."
Looking back on The Donald's first six weeks as the President of the United States it appears he is well on course to accomplish what he promised on the campaign trail that he would do. At least, he is attempting to fulfill his promises. Most Presidents do not even try to do that much.
I do not know if I completely agree with all that Stephen Bannon and Reince Priebus had to say. I do believe this much: when you consider that major media is well known to slant stories any way they have to in order to attract the largest share of the viewing audience that they possibly can, or to sell the highest number of copies attainable, there is very little room for disagreement with some of their comments.
Time will tell how strong the so-called "Opposition Party" will become, and if they will eventually replace the Democrats who are holding on for dear life to the few remaining remnants of their political party.
It is widely speculated that the Democrats have lost almost all of the power they ever had in Washington, D.C. mainly because of the eight disastrous years that was the Obama Presidency.
More importantly, and you can research this for yourself if you wish to, the Democrats were the architects of the very issues they are now paying people to demonstrate against in the streets of America and attempting to pass off as having been brought on by The Donald's Administration.
Why are they doing this? Simply stated, in an effort to save what little bit of face they have remaining and because that is almost all that is left for them to do.
As a major political party, I do sincerely believe the Democrats will probably never recover from all they have lost. At least, not for the next four years.
I will allow the words of Thomas Edward Perez to sum up how the Democrats currently see themselves, "We are suffering from a crisis of confidence, a crisis of relevance." These words were spoken as he accepted the position of Chairman of the Democrats on Saturday, February 25, 2017.
| Author Notes |
Is there a new major political party developing in the United States?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
When Vice President Mike Pence departed Germany after meeting with the heads of several European countries their biggest fears about The Donald's foreign policy were alleviated.
At the conclusion of their discussions with the Vice President, the Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, and the Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, the Europeans were asking the American dignitaries, "What should Europe start doing on their own?"
Although Vice President Pence vowed to hold Russia accountable and to back NATO, several European nations were concerned the United States would withdraw from the Transatlantic Alliance like it did from the Transpacific Partnership.
Vice President Pence and Secretary of Defense Mattis declined to field questions after they addressed the Europeans. This response fueled the smoldering fire many Europeans felt over the messages The Donald and his team of advisors have recently presented.
In response to the Americans not answering any questions from the Europeans, Former French Diplomat Francois Heirbourg stated, "We used to see this from the Russians and occasionally the Chinese. But to have American officials speaking in plenary sessions and refusing to take questions, its unbelievable."
Alexander "Sandy" Verschbow, the former United States Ambassador to Russia and Deputy Secretary General of NATO, remarked, "I'm struck by the many European representatives here that have read the collected works of Stephen Bannon (The Donald's Chief Strategist)."
Elliott Abrams, who served in the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush Presidential Administrations, chimed in with, "In three months the full line-up of Deputy, Under, and Assistant Secretaries {for The Donald's Cabinet} will be in place."
Abrams further elaborated, "The lack of Department personnel, and the uncertainty about whether Cabinet Secretaries speak for the President will continue {until then} and it may continue until events themselves clarify American policy."
The consensus of these meetings resulted in European countries understanding their needs to take care of their own backyards and spend more on defense. This was illustrated by Mark Leonard, the Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, who commented:
"Rather than parse every statement from a US Official and every tweet from the White House, Europeans need to start thinking about what they have to do for themselves." He also lamented, "Europe has been infantilized and emasculated by decades of over-reliance on the US security umbrella."
Europe faces several problems of its own including jihadist terrorists, a refugee crisis, Brexit (England leaving the European Union), and a vengeful Russia. Now would be a real good time for them to start doing as much as they possibly can to assist themselves and for that puppy to learn how to bite.
| Author Notes |
Infantilized and emasculated by an over-dependence on American defense, Europe now faces a situation where they must learn to defend themselves.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
In an effort to do more with less, the Donald has suggested a 54 billion dollar splurge on new ships, fighters, and aircraft for the United States military. At the same time, he desires to cut an equal amount of foreign aid and domestic programs from his first projected federal budget.
The economic centerpiece of The Donald's Presidential campaign, this budget announcement would fulfill another one of Trump's promises. That is to boost the Pentagon and lessen expenditures from other federal agencies.
Ten percent. That is what The Donald wants to slash from the Environmental Protection Agency and foreign aid. Border security, law enforcement, Social Security, Medicare, and programs for American veterans would remain untouched. He also insists on achieving a huge tax cut..
In explaining his budget intentions to Congress, as well as previously to a group of Governors at the White House, The Donald stated, "We're going to start spending on infrastructure big. It's not like we have a choice. Our highways, our bridges are unsafe, our tunnels. We're going to do more with less and make the government lean and accountable to the people."
John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, the White House Director of Management and Budget, further elaborated on The Donald's proposed budget by saying, "The spike in Pentagon spending would bring the total defense budget to a record 603 billion {dollars} and that's before including tens of billions of dollars for overseas military operations."
American military leaders have repeatedly stated to Congress that Air Force aircraft, for a large portion of that pie, average being 27 years old.
Mulvaney went on to remark, "It is a true America First budget. It will show the President is keeping his promises and will do exactly what he said he was going to do. It {the proposed budget} prioritizes rebuilding our military, including restoring our nuclear capabilities, protecting the nation and securing the border, enforcing the laws currently on the books, taking care of Vets and increasing school choice."
Mulvaney also commented, "The plan {Trump's proposed budget} wouldn't add to the budget deficit, currently projected to hit 500 billion {dollars} next year, but it wouldn't reduce it either."
That point brings us to the potential downfalls of The Donald's proposed budget. I will cover this in my next posting. For now, pour yourself another cup of piping hot, fresh brewed coffee, scramble up some eggs and bacon. Throw on a little hash browns with cheese, maybe some toast, and most of all, enjoy your breakfast!
| Author Notes |
Doing more with less. That is the alleged theme of The Donald's proposed new budget.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
In my last edition of Breakfast With The Donald, Part 1 - Do More With Less, I examined the projected upside of The Donald's proposed budget. Here in Part 2 - Do More With Less, I will now illustrate the potential downside of Trump's estimated budget.
To begin with The Donald's budget faces strong opposition from the Democrats, who actually have enough power to block the plan.
With prominent Senator John McCain of Arizona leading the charge, certain Republicans also seem to contest Trump's budget proposal.
The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, McCain claimed, "It {Trump's budget} would do too little to help the Pentagon."
McCain also remarked, "Trump's budget proposal plans would fall short by about 40 billion {dollars} and represent just a small increase upon former President Barack Obama's recent Pentagon wish list."
A skeptical Mitch McConnell, who is a Republican Senator from Kentucky, only commented, "We'll see how it works out."
Furthering the Democrats opposition of The Donald's proposed budget, Charles Schumer, the outspoken Leader of the Senate Democrats, belligerently responded, "It is clear from this budget blueprint that President Trump fully intends to break his promises to working families by taking a meat ax to programs that benefit the middle class. A cut this steep almost certainly means cuts to agencies that protect consumers from Wall Street excess and protect clean air and water."
EDITORIAL NOTE: Talk about grasping at straws. However, that demonstrates the continuously uninformed allegations the Democrats make about everything Trump does. Perhaps they should keep paying gullible people to protest in the streets? It is about all the Democrats have left to do. Even their own leadership has stated the terrible condition the Democrats are currently in. (Also, if you read Part One of this essay you can easily detect Schumer's comments could not be further from the truth.)
With the battle lines clearly drawn, The Donald's tentative budget for 2018 was set to be forwarded to federal agencies who will be offered an opportunity to propose changes before the budget takes effect on October 1, 2017.
A Congressional showdown over The Donald's proposed budget seems imminent and a shutdown of the federal government poses another real possibility. This is not to say what the results of The Donald's proposed budget will be. These comments are solely intended to provide a glimpse of what the potential fallouts from that budget could be.
Additionally, another government shutdown could occur on April 28, 2017. There remains a deadline to finish up spending bills for the current 2017 budget year, Obama's final budget could be his last parting shot at hampering the United States' ability to function.
Time will tell how much of The Donald's proposed budget is approved and exactly what government programs will face the chopping block.
| Author Notes |
The potential downside of The Donald's proposed budget.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come to Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
One of The Donald's major thoughts about bringing down the cost of health insurance is to allow insurers to sell health care policies across state lines. Cross-state insurance is also popular with Conservative lawmakers, especially those who see state-level regulations demand consumers purchase coverage they do not need or particularly desire, and also raises the cost of health insurance.
Critics of the notion believe cross-state insurance is not likely to be more affordable. They also insinuate cross-state insurance would possibly undermine strong consumer protections, particularly in Hawaii and California. This, they claim, could also result in leaving elderly consumers unable to afford health coverage.
Sixty votes in the Senate would be required to pass legislation related to cross-state insurance. This means The Donald's plan would require some support from Democrats to pass. The odds of Trump receiving that necessary support appears to be highly unlikely.
Approximately 20 million American citizens who purchase their health insurance directly from insurers would be affected by Trump's cross-state policies plan. These health care plans are regulated as far as the minimum benefits that must be covered, and medical disputes between consumers and insurers are concerned.
The Affordable Health Care Act did raise the minimum standards for coverage nationwide. That remains one valid point of the AHCA. Republicans have promised for the longest time to repeal this Act and replace it. To date, they have nothing to replace it with.
David Jones, the Insurance Commissioner of California, stated, "The Trump proposal on cross-state sales would eviscerate (weaken) the ability of state legislatures and state governors to decide what the appropriate consumer protections are for their state's consumers and businesses."
Barbara Klever of the American Academy of Actuaries, responded, "Premiums really reflect the cost of care where an individual lives."
Joseph R. Antos, an Economist with the American Enterprise Institute, claimed, "The idea of cross-state health insurance has an instinctive appeal because Americans have seen competition drive down costs in other areas from credit cards to air travel. But, it's a faulty analogy when it comes to health insurance because where the competition needs to happen is among hospitals and doctors."
So, although the consideration of cross-state insurance sales has been around for a decade or more, experts believe it might not deliver as it promises it will.
| Author Notes |
Are cross-state insurance sales the best solution for replacing the Affordable Care Act?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
(This is an Editorial)
What do Libya, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen have in common with each other? Rumor has it citizens of these six Muslim nations will remain on The Donald's newest immigration ban order. (It is being called a rumor simply because the Executive Order has not been officially released yet) Conspicuously missing from this list is Iraq, who will be removed from the travel ban that will remain in effect for ninety days.
This decision follows pressure from the State Department, and the Pentagon, who strongly encouraged The Donald to remove Iraq mainly based on Iraq's role in combatting the Islamic State.
Also under this new plan, Syrian refugees would be banned from immigrating to the United States for six months. The ban will not include explicit exemptions for religious minorities in the countries remaining on the ban.
The Donald's original ban on immigration resulted in many detainees being returned back to the country from whence they came from. It also barred several potential immigrants from boarding planes bound for the United States from foreign airports.
Some Green Card holders were blocked before receiving special permission to reenter America, and approximately 60,000 visas were revoked by the State Department. These were later reinstated.
The Donald's initial ban on immigrants from the Select Seven was eventually blocked by the bleeding heart, obviously terrorist-supporting, James Robart, a Washington State federal judge. It was also upheld by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. (Which proves even the courts do not get everything right all the time.)
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated, "When we have one {the new Executive Order referencing immigrants from the now, Select Six, Muslim countries} we'll announce it."
Since his address to Congress, The Donald has presented more of a delayed nature than the rushed circumstances of his original Executive Order banning the Select Seven.
In that address, he told Congress, "We will shortly take new steps to keep our nation safe and to keep out those who would do us harm."
Army Lieutenant General Stephen J. Townsend, who commands the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq, remarked, "They've {the Iraqis} invited us into their country to help them. They are protecting us here and we're fighting this enemy that threatens all of our countries together. So, I would prefer personally not to see anything that would reflect on that except that we have a very strong partnership."
| Author Notes |
From the Select Seven to the Select Six. The Donald's newest travel ban on Muslim countries will eliminate Iraq from off that list.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Editorial. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Editorial. |
By Brett Matthew West
There may be a bright side to Attorney General Jeff Sessions choice to concentrate his efforts on immigration, drugs, and violent crimes. He may have also made a wise selection to distance himself from any investigations of The Donald's 2016 Presidential Campaign.
It appears Sessions now possesses a clear path to reshape the United States Department of Justice, a project he commenced shortly after being sworn in as Attorney General.
As an Alabama Senator, Jeff Sessions maintained a tough-on-crime persona. As a former federal prosecutor, his main areas of concentration included criminal justice, civil rights, and drug policies. However, as Attorney General his earliest priorities seem to be focused on undoing the legacy items of the Democrats under Barack Obama.
The Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions has repealed a memorandum directed at ceasing the phase out of private prisons. They have also lifted anti-discrimination guidelines ensuring transgender students can use school restrooms of their choice.
The United States Department of Justice reversed its multi-years long opposition to a critical aspect of the State of Texas's voter identification law. Attorney General Sessions has also indicated the Department of Justice may take a more stringent hands-on position on enforcing laws pertaining to marijuana. He sees the drug as being more violent than most people believe it to be.
Sessions also wants to withdraw federal scrutiny of local law enforcement agencies. This indication was strongly endorsed by James Pasco, the Executive Director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, who stated, "Support for the Police particularly in these trying times is extremely welcome and good news to our members. It's refreshing and welcome and no less than we would expect from Jeff Sessions."
In discussing the rapidness in which Attorney General Jeff Sessions is walking his programs through the Department of Justice, William Yeomans, who spent nearly thirty years as a member of that organization, stated, "This is probably unprecedented in the speed and dramatic change in course that's happened."
Yeomans also contributed, "There have been transitions before where the department headed off in new directions, but there is traditionally a period of new people coming in and studying and learning about issues before taking bold and dramatic new policy directions."
| Author Notes |
Attorney General Jeff Sessions is pushing his programs though with unprecedented speed.
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
After debating the issue for seven grueling years the Republicans have proposed legislation designed to repeal the nightmare known as the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
This massive 123-page package contains the highlighted features of:
-repealing the fines on people who do not carry health insurance
-replace income-based subsidies provided to help millions of American citizens pay their premiums with age-based tax credits less generous to low-income people. Those same payments would be phased out for higher-income people
-expand Medicaid to low-earning Americans until 2020
-overhaul the federal-state Medicaid program, change its open-ended federal financing to a limit based on enrollment and costs in each state
-provide medical coverage for less than the twenty million people insured under the Affordable Care Act
-ranging from $2,000 to $14,000, Republican tax credits for families would be refundable. Even people with no tax liability would receive the payment
-As of 2018, tax increases on higher-earning people, the insurance industry, and others who financed Obamacare overhaul would be repealed
Okay, Republicans. Is Obamacare-Lite truly the very best option you can provide?
In what may well be the year's defining Congressional battle, Obamacare-Lite as this legislation will undoubtedly become known by, was expected to be voted on beginning on Wednesday, March 8, 2017 and leave many Americans uninsured.
However, divisions within the Republican ranks still exist, and successful passing of this legislation is far from assured, even with the backing of The Donald's Administration.
Key dividing points among Republicans include:
-the tax credits, according to several Conservative Republicans, would create an entitlement program the federal government can not afford
-moderate Republicans worry that Obamacare-Lite will leave too many voters without health coverage
-concern that the drafted legislation does not allow the necessary flexibility states need or provide stability for individuals and families in medical expansion programs
-payments to Planned Parenthood would be curtailed for one year, and people receiving tax credits to pay premiums to purchase health coverage under a plan that provides abortions would not be allowed to do so
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan claimed Obamacare-Lite, "would drive down costs, encourage competition, and give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance."
He further promised, "This unified Republican government will deliver relief and peace of mind to the millions of Americans suffering under Obamacare."
But, at what real costs?
Senator Orin Hatch, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, in regards to probable changes in Obamacare-Lite stated, "The House has the right to come up with what it wants to and present it to the Senate by passing it. And we {the Senate} have a right to look it over and see if we like it or don't."
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has not yet provided official cost estimates on Obamacare-Lite to the Republicans. Those cost projections, as well as the number of people the bill would actually cover, could be essential elements in winning Republicans who currently do not favor the measure over and its passage.
The battle lines on Obamacare-Lite are well drawn in the sand. So, now, all Americans can do is sit back and watch this one unfold.
| Author Notes |
Republicans promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. Is Obamacare-Lite the proper answer?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
Feeling brave? If so, you may want to inquire of Scott Pruitt, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, what occurs after you question the link between climate change and human activities? He may very well tell you telephone calls to the agency's main connector line reached an excessively high volume after he did.
In addressing this issue on the CNBC television program, Pruitt commented, "We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."
The kneejerk reaction to his remarks drew an immediate, and overwhelming, response from several environmental groups and scientists out to make a name for themselves who are involved in the climate change debate.
Pruitt's elaboration, "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do."
This remark was not especially well received either. Many responders were not enamored to say the least.
Pruitt then stated, "There's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact {human activity has on climate change} so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
Pruitt's views are in direct contrast to what is posted on the EPA's website and reads, "{According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change} It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th Century."
Carbon dioxide is another alleged byproduct of human activity on climate change. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to rise at an alarming, record-setting, pace for the second year in a row.
Add the 2015 statistics to the 401.5 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere measured in 2016, and there is no comparative precedent in the last 59 years. This is the length of time carbon dioxide levels have been tracked by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Pruitt's views on how human activity affects climate change did receive at least one scientist's support. Judith Curry, who recently retired from Georgia Tech, and is an outspoken supporter of the theory human activity plays a very minor role in climate change.
Her comments were, "If I am interpreting Pruitt's statements correctly, I do not find anything to disagree with in what he said. We don't know how much of recent warming can be attributed to humans. In my opinion, this is correct and is a healthy position for both the science and policy debates."
In December of 2016, The Donald and his children came under attack from a petition launched by the League of Conservation Voters, and David Willett, the organization's Senior Vice President for Communications.
The League of Conservation Voters had its second-largest fundraising day after Pruitt's comments aired, which prompted Willett to remark, "It's not surprising to hear people are calling after Pruitt contradicted his own agency's science."
Are humans bad for the climate? They have been on everything else they have ever come in contact with. But, for better or for worse, the jury remains out on just how much affect human activity has on climate change...if any.
| Author Notes |
Humans are notorious for damaging everything they have ever come in contact with. But, what, if any, affect does human activity have on climate change?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
Since the United States was originally founded in 1776, there have been 124 Supreme Court Justices confirmed by the Senate. The process is an arduous one. In the case of Neil Gorsuch, a Denver-based 10th US Circuit Judge who The Donald tapped to become the newest member of the Supreme Court, this process has included many one-on-one meetings with Senators.
As the confirmation process begins, there will be at least two days of testimony. Opening statements by Neil Gorsuch, as well as the twenty member-Senate Judiciary Committee who will each speak for ten minutes, and witnesses testifying after those procedures have been completed will also be a part of the formalities.
The United States Constitution allows for the President to nominate a Supreme Court Judge. Ambiguous, all the Constitution states in that regard is, "By and with the advice and consent of the Senate." It is the Senate rules and traditions that dictate the confirmation process.
Neil Gorsuch has already met with 72 Senators in advance hearings. He has been a participant in intense Trump Administration-facilitated questioning to prepare him to face the Senate. Previous topics of Senate inquiries for prospective Supreme Court Justices have included the legal qualifications of the nominated Judge, their position on political issues of the day, how they interpret the Constitution of the United States, legal philosophy, and legal controversies.
Should Gorsuch be confirmed as the newest Supreme Court Justice, he would tilt the Court to a Conservative advantage. Democrats are likely to prod him if he is reluctant to concisely answer questions about current Court issues. For instance, Chuck Schumer, the Leader of the Senate Democrats, has already been critical of Gorsuch because he failed to precisely respond to his asking the Judge if The Donald's immigration ban is constitutional?
During Gorsuch's confirmation hearing, advocacy groups and former colleagues will testify in favor of, or opposed to, his confirmation. One high mark Gorsuch has in his favor appears to come from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Previously providing Gorsuch a "well qualified" and unanimous rating, this Republican-led committee is expected to favorably report Gorsuch's nomination to the floor of the Senate who will have the ultimate say on whether or not he is confirmed.
More than half of the Senate is expected to vote in favor of Gorsuch, but he needs sixty votes to become confirmed. That means eight Democrats or Independents would also have to vote for him for the nomination not to be blocked. Several experts believe this will be the Democrats goal. Should that occur, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could hold a vote to lower the confirmation threshold in what is referred to as "the nuclear option."
The real confirmation vote could be a simple majority confirms Neil Gorsuch as the newest Supreme Court Judge.
| Author Notes |
The confirmation process for Neil Gorsuch is underway. Will he become the newest United States Supreme Court Judge?
No matter what your thoughts and feelings about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens, we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. Here I come To Save The Day, by Barb Baker, selected to complement my Essay. So, thanks Barb Baker, for the use of your picture. It goes so nicely with my Essay. |
By Brett Matthew West
So, a Democrat CAN work with The Donald and his Administration after all. And has been. Since November of 2016. His name is Doctor Ezekiel Emanuel. He is an oncologist, a bioethicist, and the Chairman of the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy. He is also one of the chief architects of the Affordable Care Act. His goal? To help the Republicans take apart Obamacare.
Emanual has been involved in three face-to-face conversations with The Donald on health policy. Vice President Mike Pence, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Tom Price, who is the Secretary of Human Services, Senior Advisor Jared Kushner, and Gary Cohn, the National Economic Council Director, also attended the latest meeting between The Donald and Ezekiel Emanuel on the topic of health policy.
Press Secretary Sean Spicer confirmed the meeting occurred and stated, "The President also strongly believes that the health and wellbeing of the American people shouldn't always be a partisan issue."
Emanuel's role in these meetings presents a dramatic turnaround for the health policy expert who filled the position of top advisor on the subject to Barack Obama during the formulation of the Affordable Care Act from 2009 to 2011.
Emanuel is also well known for his 380-page book Reinventing American Health Care that was published in 2014 by the Perseus Books Group. In this book he penned, "Beginning in 2020 or so, the ACA will increasingly be seen as a world historical achievement, even more important for the United States than Social Security and Medicare have been."
Additionally, Emanuel has consistently maintained that the humongous Affordable Care Act needs to be improved. He believes specific areas that need expanding are containing health costs, improving the affordability of the ACA, expanding insurance coverage, and the inconsistent quality of healthcare delivery in the United States needs to be improved.
Perhaps if The Donald can garnish the proper personnel around him he can actually provide a much better product than the Affordable Care Act ever was. We Americans can only sit back, watch the battle over this legislation play out, and hope for the best.
| Author Notes |
If one Democrat can actually work with The Donald's Administration then why can't all of them to make the United States a much better place? -- bipartisan politics get in the way. That's why.
No matter what your thoughts and feeling about Trump are feel free to state them in your reviews. As American citizens we all have the right to state our opinions. And, that is what this book is designed for. Getting people talking about The Donald. |
|
You've read it - now go back to FanStory.com to comment on each chapter and show your thanks to the author! |
| © Copyright 2015 Brett Matthew West All rights reserved. Brett Matthew West has granted FanStory.com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
© 2015 FanStory.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Statement