But Trump Hires The Best People

Either he’s powerful, or he’s gullible. Either he’s a great manager, or a bad one. He cannot be both.

For what it’s worth, Trump doesn’t appear to regret his hiring choices, but his cult base seems to think he’s being played.

Yet, if he hires the best people, why did he lose Michael Flynn, one of his closest aides and National Security Advisor? Reince Preibus? Ryan “Puerto Rico Lineman” Zinke, Tom Price, Steve Bannon… and Paul Manafort, or Rick Gates? And what the heck happened with Scaramucci?

The list of those he’s hired, then had to fire is no longer just a chyron of cable news, it’s an actual list.

Today, the President told the world that the Mueller indictments announced this morning are for crimes from “years ago,” and says Manafort’s role in the campaign was a small one.

This is simply untrue. No one likes the word “lie,” but call it what you want: the indictment includes crimes committed last summer, during the campaign, and Manafort’s role was a large one. He was hired March 29 to run the campaign. In every way.

Here’s what Trump said at the time:

“Paul [Manafort] is a great asset and an important addition as we consolidate the tremendous support we have received in the primaries and caucuses, garnering millions more votes than any other candidate. Paul Manafort, and the team I am building, bring the needed skill sets to ensure that the will of the Republican voters, not the Washington political establishment, determines who will be the nominee for the Republican Party. I look forward to winning the nomination, and ultimately the presidency in order to Make America Great Again.”

And here’s what I said at the time:

“The man doesn’t hide that he plays the card tables across the globe. His digital rolodex swerves the topographical surface of earth from French presidential candidates and African rebel force commanders to Ukrainian oligarchs and American senators. He doesn’t just rub shoulders with dictators and arms dealers, or lobby on behalf of Saudi princes, he runs PR for their organizations – when he’s not fraternizing with them. Think: OLIVIA POPE WITH A BLACK HAT – the Lord of War, and masseuse of criminal legacies. This is the master of Donald trump’s machine today.”

Manafort’s greatest asset was to network the world’s most powerful with the world’s most degraded, and to run PR and campaigns for them. But somehow it was overlooked that his resume’s crown jewel was to elect a pro-Putin Ukrainian president through questionable means. Or, perhaps that’s why he was hired. First, as campaign chairman, then, as manager when he pushed Corey Lewandowski aside to take over the entire campaign a month later.

At this exact moment, trump was teasing the Russians to hack servers on national TV. Donald, Jr., Kushner and Manafort were meeting with Russians about “adoption.” A now-dead GOP operative was communicating with Wikileaks about finding Hillary’s emails. And Roger Stone (Manafort’s longtime business partner and friend) was messaging Guccifer 2.0 about the Wikileaks dump that month. This isn’t “liberal fake news.” It’s on FoxNews. It’s not denied.

The only Russia-connected hires he still has on board are Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (Rosneft/Exxon oil field) and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (Bank of Cyprus). Both of which stand to earn billions among their small circles if sanctions are lifted in the Arctic.

Yeah, it’s all coincidence. And it’s not Trump’s responsibility that he hired all these “great people.” Nah. This is all Hillary.

 

Trump Admin Not Enforcing Russia Sanctions Passed by Congress

The Trump administration is not implementing the sanctions passed almost unanimously by Congress in July, and the leaders of the Senate Armed Services committee are not happy about it.

The bill, passed in the wake of proven Russian meddling in our election last year, was signed under strong opposition from the President. Sens John McCain and Ben Cardin sent a letter to the President 12 days after the deadline, urging him to follow through on identifying which entities were going to be sanctioned. That was 13 days ago. The president is now four weeks overdue on this providing this list, and is not responding to requests for an explanation of the delay.

The sanctions go much further than the ones ordered last December in response to initial awareness of Russia’s meddling, primarily because of the detail of that meddling that became public during GOP-led investigations into the election.

The bill outlined for sanction entities that:

  • undermine US cybersecurity on behalf of the Russia government
  • invest certain amounts in Russia’s energy export pipelines
  • conduct “significant” transactions with Russian defense and intelligence agencies (though this will come into effect six months from now)
  • commit, or assist in, serious human rights abuses
  • commit acts of “significant” corruption
  • provide support to the Syrian government to acquire arms
  • invest, or facilitate the investment of, $10 million or more in the Russian government’s privatization of any state-owned asset in a one-year period that could unfairly benefit government officials or their associates.

The sanctions went further to detail a dozen types of sanctions which should be imposed upon such entities, once identified, including the revoking US visas, restricting exports and freezing money or property.

 

 

 

WaPo: Harvey Weinstein Helped Pay the Clinton’s Legal Bills

Once I saw the headline, I remembered: Harvey Weinstein was one of those Hollywood liberals who helped the Clintons cover their legal bills in the 90’s, and the Washington Post was the outlet that broke it.

Yes, the ironic fakenews bourgeoisie is sharing a WaPo story. Not really “in the tank” after all. Especially now, with all the attention Weinstein is getting lately. It’s been fairly easy to throw a stick and hit another Harvey story, so there’s no point in belaboring the topic. However, the story does remind the electorate how deep the Clinton’s network was built over the years. Over the years, Bill and Hillary Clinton have received nearly $30,000 in donations from Weinstein.

Of course, Harvey wasn’t alone. The Clinton Legal Defense fund, established in Arkansas by Clinton family friend David Pryor, saw over 17,000 donors, 62 of which gave the maximum $10,000. It was a list of who’s who, including Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisand, Michael Douglas, Ron Howard, Norman Lear, Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw-Spielberg as well as studio executives Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, and Weinstein. By law, the operation was not allowed to solicit donations, but was promoted heavily at the time through Hollywood circles. The fund was closed in 1997, leaving the Clintons with more than $3 million in outstanding legal expenses.

It was a nice thought while it lasted. And apparently, it attracted some tawdry characters with it.

“Birds of a feather,” you might say.

 

 

Rep Steve King is Mad at President Trump

“Trump intends on keeping Hillary Clinton’s campaign promises, rather than his own.”

– Steve King

As rumors swirled around D.C. last night about President Trump ‘s dinner with Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other Democrat leaders, he was apparently working out terms on DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). This sent resident nationalists into a frenzy, even trending #AmnestyDon on Twitter for several hours. It unveiled real doubt for the first time in the President’s integrity among the Trumpkin faithful.

Finally.

Rep. King went on a rant, including an inaccurate statement claiming fmr. President Reagan’s amnesty failed (it passed the same year with bipartisan support), and that DACA was amnesty. But nonetheless, it was entertaining.

And this…

That last Tweet has since been deleted. Pesky screenshots. /sarc

Whiplash firebrand Ann Coulter got in on the collective depression, as well:

She had no thumb-hangover, though, and kept the tweet in all its inglorious bastardry.

As he cleaned up his Twitter account, Rep. King went on air with cable interviews, expounding his 140 character screeds, telling CNN’s Alyson Camerota, “Something has to get reversed here with this president’s policy or this will just blow up his base.” He continued, “This was a straight up promise all the way through his campaign. What it means is the base will leave him. They won’t be able to defend him anymore.”

Something normal people stopped doing long ago. It doesn’t mean Rep. King can leave his sandbox though. Just that a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

From the Clowncar to the Profane: Ryan’s Challenger Goes Gutter

Most people challenge incumbents because of a disagreement in policy, or they doubt their integrity. But, one opponent is showing their campaign may not be all that serious, and could be more about getting attention than changing things. This year, it appears to be recent Wisconsin activist, Paul Nehlen. RightWisconsin, a popular regional journalistic site said it best: “It’s tempting to think of Paul Nehlen as a bad joke.”

Nehlen, a businessman and a-bunch-of-other-things-no-one-can-establish is running against sitting Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who is also serving as Speaker of the House. Nehlen ran an unsuccessful primary campaign against Ryan two years ago, losing by nearly 70% in a multi-million dollar challenge that briefly claimed the support of then-candidate Donald Trump. His campaign was backed by “scam PAC” aficionado Dan Backer. Before then, no one in the 1st district had ever heard of this Nehlen guy, or vouch for who he was.

After his big loss, he submitted his name for Speaker of the House (being a congressman is not a constitutional requirement).

For the record, he didn’t get any votes.

In the days following the election, he got himself entangled in a two-month police investigation by tweeting his marked ballot voting for himself (such ballot selfies are illegal in Wisconsin to avoid vote-selling), and eliminated the evidence before cooperating with local police.

While he’s claimed to be more conservative than Speaker Ryan, Nehlen has staked out a decidedly populist stance on most issues, and makes his support of President Trump a centerpiece of his effort. But, he may be showing more than just support for his favorite personality, and trying to sound like him as well.

No stranger to the profane, President Trump became known to his base as a man who “tells it like it is,” which usually included misogynistic insults, swearing, f-bombs, multiple threats, conspiratorial slander, childish rants against the media – pretty much any critic. Nehlen thinks it worked well for him, or perhaps in spite of him. So, Nehlen has decided to add this feature to his own campaign. He’s just a real hoot.

This week, he referred to the 800,000 DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) applicants as “mo-fos,” and fashioned his insult into a patriotic sing-song.

“Mo-fo” is shorthand for mother****er, for those who stick to PG movies.

This was not a retweet, a midnight “like” due to a staffer… they were his words.

His Twitter feed usually centers around the single issue of immigration (he’s a nationalist), endorsements for conspiracy theories like Pizzagate (no, really), and links to fake news websites and conservative tabloids even Breitbart won’t entertain. But, Twitter is not his only domain, as he has shown a propensity for immature spittle on Facebook as well, referring to the Speaker consistently as “Pablo Ryan,” and calling other political leaders degrading names.

As RightWisconsin observed, Nehlen may think his antics are funny, but there’s nothing humorous in using obscenities in public, and making racist appeals for votes.

I agree. I look forward to voting for my congressman, again, and sending this clown back to wherever he came from before 2015.

If someone wishes to primary incumbents, that’s their right and privilege in this great country. But, making a mockery of the system is a shameful act of self-aggrandizement none of us should entertain.


 

This column is the expressed opinion of the contributor, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or endorsement of the editor or The Resurgent.

 

“NevertRump” is SO 2016 – I’m Just a Conservative

It never fails… one word of opposition in a political group, I’m labeled. If I bear a tone of negativity during a discussion about the (current) president, epithets flow. And the most egregious: if I share a link from an actual news organization, I’m branded a “sheeple.”

How ironic.

For the last 18 months, a scarlet hashtag of political exile has become my Château d’If; I am called “nevertrump,” as though I’m a gentile in a land of puritans.

But seriously, the election was nearly a year ago. The height of the #NevertRump movement was last summer, and frankly, it’s SO 2016 – find a new line.

Give me a hyphenated label if you wish, or call me the opposition. But still, I’m just me: a conservative.

And so are millions of others. Including those who held their nose, closed their eyes, tore off their nametags and quietly voted for the most evil of two lessers last November. We are all STILL conservatives,  even if we criticize the president. And refusing to tow the line and “respect the president” after eight years of unified oppugnancy does not make us the polar opposite of our lifelong convictions. We aren’t “liberals” because we speak up for the same principles we once stood for on capitol lawns and in town halls across the country.

I called Obama – scratch that – YOU called Obama “arrogant,” a “liar,” “authoritarian,” and “secretive.” Now, each of those things are ok, because… “GORSUCH!”

How far we’ve come from the simplicity of the original Tea Party Movement. Now, being a consistent conservative is tantamount to being a Democrat. I’ve been called a traitor, and I bet you have too. Some days, it’s easier to be conservative at Berkeley than in a group of trumpublicans.

I have always been a conservative because of the beliefs that fall under its umbrella: small government, personal responsibility, federalism, republican representation, a moral society.

It was never defined by a single man, nor a single party. It wasn’t prescribed by my single mother as she raised me (she’s more moderate than I am), nor did my friends impress their philosophy upon me (I spent my formative years in Portland, OR). I am a conservative because it is my conviction. Therefore, why must I redefine it because of something less significant? He’s just a man.

Whether Donald Trump finishes four years, is impeached after the midterms or resigns sooner (please?), he will one day disappear.  Perhaps some other equally divisive figure will arise, but generally, such populists only come around every 40 or 50 years.

But conservatism is timeless. The principles that this nation were founded on are at least 400 years old. They will never go away,  because human nature is to progress, and conservatism works.

If my intellectual consistency, which occasionally pits me against even fellow conservatives in debate, gives you heartburn, that’s ok. It’s making it a personal attack and rhetorical fistfight that bores me. I get along more with my liberal friends at times because there are no pretenses. We debate methods more than results, and can usually move onto funny movie references or sports talk while “Tea Parties United” folks are still wishing for Senator McCain’s early death or screaming about procedural terms they never knew about before 2014, like “cloture.”

 

I understand that some of my conservative brethren made a decision to quietly support Trump against Hillary a year ago, even though I thought it was the wrong choice. Millions of us could not do so. But, saying I have an obligation to support this president after years of opposing a liberal one is ridiculous. I haven’t changed. While Trump was still a registered Democrat, donating to Harry Reid, Kamala Harris, and Chuck Schumer, and declaring Democrats as better stewards of the economy, I was the same as I am now: a constitutional conservative.

And I will be in every election forward.

I’m not #NevertRump anymore. That was then. I’m #NeverDishonest with myself. Im consistent. I’m a conservative.  The question should be, after all this, are you?

Trump’s Korean Legacy: Shotgun Diplomacy

The last 24 hours have done nothing if not shown the resiliency of the American president’s thumbs. They are dutifully back at work now that he’s done his due diligence in Texas. Unfortunately, his performance in the wake of Hurricane Harvey does not invalidate the actions he takes the rest of the time. His latest tweeting should make us all wish it did.

Yesterday morning, President Trump shot across the bow of South Korean leadership by presuming to tell them – via Twitter, of course – that diplomatic efforts to save their people “will not work.” North Korea had just tested an underground hydrogen bomb that registered a 6.3 on the Richter scale. Maybe he thinks Twitter is a better method of communication than traditional government channels. Apparently, his real estate development experience has honed his foreign policy skills, and informed his knowledge of what North Korea understands. We are to assume his “good brain” knows more about North Korean behavior than South Korean leaders do.

Oh ok. So, after 60 years, they’re NOW finding out what Trump has been telling them for a few months? Got it. Six hours later, presumably to show he means business, he threatened to stop all trade with anyone who does business with North Korea, including China, who represents 83% of all DPRK trade.

So, they still only understand sanctions? Or military threats? Which is it? That itself came hours after he said he’s working on a plan to pull out of our free trade agreement with South Korea, too. Why he’s pushing them around on trade at the time we need military unity is unknown. This has economic leaders there worried. Add to this the disconnect between the public stance of our two countries, which Korean experts are calling “Korean passing,” or, the passing over of Southern interest to deal with North Korea unilaterally.

Yes, the President is literally taking a shotgun to everyone in the room – both our allies, and our enemies, along with the negotiators, all at once.

 

South Korea already has reason to distrust the American president’s impulses, as he once demanded South Korea pay for our military presence there. (They actually do subsidize 30% of operations)

Many felt his several statements over the years indicate he does not grasp the geopolitical value of the region.

If Trump gets his way (at least what he thinks the last 24 hours), our North Korean strategy no longer includes the collaboration of 51 million South Koreans facing probable death in a military conflict with their neighbors. But to make matters worse, we will no longer trade with China, Russia, India and even Brazil or Chile – because they conduct trade with North Korea – and we will no longer have free trade with the South. This means more than $1 trillion of economic activity will cease, if the U.S. government performs according to Trump’s tweets.

No doubt, the reliable defenders will rush to say:

1. He doesn’t mean it,
2. His administration will temper his threats, or
3. That it’s a good idea.

So, in other words:

1. He doesn’t speak the truth,
2. He can’t make good decisions without his administration stepping in, or
3. We’re headed for a global recession in the next year, and millions may die.

Which is it? The fact that we can ask is frightening.

I’m just gonna say it: We told you so.

 

 

BREAKING: Governors Considering 2020 Unity Ticket




Casual discussions are underway between the camps of governors John Kasich (R-OH) and Hickenlooper (D-CO) to form a unity ticket in 2020, presenting an alternative to the Democrat and Republican nominees for president, according to sources familiar with the conversations.

Recently, the two governors have been working on an alternative healthcare reform plan to present to others, particlarly congress. Both governors were elected around the same time (Kasich in 2010, Hickenlooper in 2011) in mixed-party states, and immediately accepted Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. Both oppose the repeal of the the Act.

Barring a surprise star in the ranks, Democrats are not expected to field especially strong candidates in the next two years in preparation for 2020, and presumably, Donald Trump will be the GOP nominee for a second time, unless directly challenged by members of his own party. If they choose to join forces, their likely target would be the majority in each party that polls indicated dissatisfaction with their respective candidates.



While third-party candidates struggle for both funding and name recognition, these men have advantages most third-party candidates don’t. National profiles in each party, independent streaks, and media-friendly relationships and donor networks. And presumably, they carry less baggage or idiosyncrasies that the other “Governors squared” campaign with Johnson/Weld in 2016.

Governors tend to work well together, and share camraderie more than most partisan leaders, and these two governors are no exception.

Gov. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, has tended toward the centerline and his party, trying to carve out a reputation for working across the aisle. Gov. Kasich of course has been riding the middle line since his first days in the 2016 campaign, and stayed in until the last stretch of the Republican primary. He earned his stripes first years ago, however, not only accepting Obamacare expansion in his state, but traveling to other state capitals to lobby fellow Republicans to do the same.

Some believed that his continued presence helped to split the non-trump crowd in the primaries – roughly 60% until the end – especially toward the end, when it was mathematically impossible for him to win, and Senator Cruz still had a chance to capture remaining delegates.

National Review’s Matthew Continetti observed at the time, “The Ohio governor has won a single state: his own. He has 143 delegates. That puts him fourth in the count behind Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio — who is no longer a candidate. To win the nomination on the first ballot of the Republican convention, Kasich would have to win 138 percent of the remaining delegates. This is impossible. Even a politician should be able to do that math.”

Now, it appears that winning the nomination may not have been his end game.