1/10/16, "The Professional Political Machine Says: “Donald Trump is Not Conservative” (Part 1)…," The Conservative Treehouse, sundance
"PART I – The professional political class continue to say candidate Donald J Trump is not conservative enough on his positions. Various voices proclaim ownership of some arbitrary defining litmus test – that apparently moves depending on the definition of the person making the proclamation.
…so let’s cut through the BS and take a look at the issues.
On Immigration – Donald Trump is the originator of the entire immigration debate platform. His position is outlined HERE, and is the ONLY candidate who proposed to build a wall, deport those who are here illegally, and use existing law to ensure enforcement mechanisms are deployed to stop illegal influx.
Including a critical proposal to use federal banking and money services regulations (wire transfer rules to Mexico) to aid in creating an incentive to become compliant with immigration law.Trump has proposed removing executive restrictions on deportation through ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officers, allowing immediate deportation for undocumented illegal aliens. The media call this “the deportation force”.
In addition, candidate Trump has proposed an end to the concept of “birthright citizenship” or “anchor babies”, which has never been adjudicated as a valid method for attaining citizenship and most legal minds believe is nonsense. Candidate Ted Cruz believes “anchor babies” are U.S. citizens at birth.
No-one is more “conservative” on Immigration than Donald J Trump.
♦ On Second Amendment – Donald Trump has proposed the end of “gun free zones” on military bases and federal properties, allowing the individual states to determine where citizens are allowed to carry firearms. Full Policy Outline HERE.
In addition, Trump has proposed that all states observe reciprocity with regard to concealed carry permits. Meaning anyone can travel anywhere in the country using their concealed carry permit from their home state. Essentially the same reciprocal arrangement and consideration that applies to drivers licensees.
No-one is more “conservative” on Second Amendment Rights.
♦ On Taxes – Donald Trump has a fully outlined tax policy available HERE. Which includes provisions to stop corporate inversion and return U.S. corporate monetary assets to the U.S. without penalty.
Additionally, the tax rates are substantially reformed and streamlined where income tax payments do not begin until the wage earner surpasses $50,000 in annual income. Trump is also proposing that Wall Street Hedge Fund operators cannot use capital gains rates to avoid their income tax bracket which would insure that very wealthy individuals cannot use loopholes and multiple accounting gimmicks to remove their own tax liability.
The Trump Tax proposal is a populist approach to improving the “middle class” wage earner, and providing upward mobility. However, it is also one small part of a larger economic plan that unleashes economic growth.
♦ On Trade – Candidate Trump folds the Tax Proposal into a more broad America-First economic policy through renegotiated trade deals. The policy on China Trade specifically is available HERE.
Candidate Trump is against the Obama negotiated Trans-Pacific Trade Deal which has the blessing of congress (thanks to Ted Cruz and Trade Promotion Authority) and approvals of Wall Street and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (crony capitalists).
Candidate Trump was the first to stand against TPP and also boldly propose that the 20-year-old NAFTA (North American Free Trade Alliance) trade treaties should be renegotiated to insure the Mexican trade economy is not longer able to skirt manufacturing rules and create outsourced jobs and manufacturing from the U.S.
The Trump platform on trade is “fair deals, and fair markets” that benefit U.S. jobs and the U.S. economy, not just one-way free market arrangements.
No-One is more “conservative” on U.S. Jobs, Trade or the U.S. economy.
♦ On Energy Policy – Candidate Trump supports the Keystone oil Pipeline a collaborative effort between the U.S. and Canada. In addition Trump supports broad U.S. energy resource development to include execution of, and development of, U.S. Oil Leases in all regions of fossil fuel development.
Trump has proposed continued investment and exploration of “clean coal” technology using the vast coal mine resources in the Appalachian Range throughout West Virginia and into Pennsylvania. Trump has proposed energy export leverage (oil, coal, natural gas) as part of the larger Trade-deal packages.
The U.S. can negotiate a resurgence of U.S. manufacturing with lower fully developed energy costs, a competitive advantage; and simultaneously our abundant resources in energy fuels also provide trade leverage (standards and tariffs) through energy export.
With a fully utilized energy sector, the U.S. can also use the accompanying economic growth to invest in alternative resource development such as nuclear, solar and wind. The costs of alternative fuel research and development become underwritten by the expansive use of current resources.
No-one is more “conservative” and smart on fully developed energy use.
♦ On Education – Candidate Trump has clearly stated his opposition to Federal Common Core programs which mandate education policy from bureaucrats in Washington DC. Trump does not believe in federal control of eduction and has clearly and succinctly stated that educational standards should be developed, and carried out, by those closest to the schools, parents and teachers.
Trump does not, and will not, support programs like “race to the top” (Obama), or “no child left behind (G.W. Bush). Instead he prefers decisions regarding standards be made by individual states and local communities.
Candidate Trump, unlike Jeb Bush, would not support withholding funds from states, as blackmail to insure common core is used.
♦ On Military – Candidate Donald Trump has proposed a similar Reagan-era approach toward rebuilding the U.S. Military apparatus as a professional fighting force. Throughout Trump’s campaign he has highlighted his intention to strengthen the U.S. modern military assets and build a comprehensive modern-era military.
However, candidate Trump views the U.S. military as a national force, and nation’s military, and runs counter to modern military industrial complex (neo-con) approach by eliminating military “outsourcing” or contractors (ex Blackwater).
Trump believes the collaborative private/government sector military partnership should be limited to the modernization of equipment and material (research and development), and never the deployment of soldiers or U.S. fighting forces.
Trump has expressed that American sons and daughters who serve in the military should be commanded by the best military and civilian leadership possible. However, our soldiers should never be deployed through the use of private contractors who operate within a grey area, and whose objectives can become detached and end up serving their own best interests.
Candidate Donald Trump is nationally loyal to U.S. interests and extraordinarily “conservative” with reverence, to the traditions of the U.S. military. (Reagan approach)
On Foreign Policy – Donald J Trump is neither an “isolationist” nor an “interventionist”. Instead, as Trump has outlined numerous times, our approach to foreign affairs should always be through the prism of U.S. interests first and foremost.
Lead when prudent, support when needed.
Two Current Examples include:
Syria – Monitor closely, but allow Russia to fight ISIS in Syria to the extent their interests do not conflict with our own. Build an international coalition to make a geographic “safe zone” within Syria where allied forces can protect Syrian refugees on the ground from any ISIS attacks – open direct lines of communication with Bashir Assad and negotiate with Vladimir Putin to use Russia’s military deployment and insure a stable transitional government for the people of Syria.
Ukraine – Monitor closely, support Germany and European allies in their efforts to work through the conflict with Russia and Ukraine. Any “coalition development or intervention” must come from Germany as lead, with our support. Germany is the regional economic powerhouse and nation dependent on Russian energy use.
While Donald Trump’s foreign policy approach might not make the interventionist crowd (Neo-cons) happy, it will also not make the isolationist crowd (libertarians) happy. The influence of the U.S. is only as strong as our ability to have our own national house in order.
After years of poor investment in U.S. infrastructure, lack of expansive economic development, burdensome regulations and trade/manufacturing deals antithetical to the U.S. middle class – Trumps proposals to look inward, put America first, and spend time polishing the lens on the ‘beacon of freedom’, are prudent, necessary and wise.
Simply, lets…
“Make America Great Again !”
...........
If that’s not conservative enough for you, I honestly don’t know what could be."
.................
==========
..........
1/11/16, Part II, from TCTH, sundance
.......
"Candidate Trump is proposing less dependence on foreign companies for cheap goods, (the cornerstone of a service economy) and a return to a more balanced U.S. larger economic model where the manufacturing and production base can be re-established and competitive based on American entrepreneurship and innovation."...
..........
"Again, if that’s not a classic approach to being fiscally conservative and solvent, I don’t know what is…..
Part 1 HEREPart 3 will finish with social issues and known proposals to reduce size and scope of government."
...........
===========
Among comments to above article, Part 1:
:
==============
"NCPatriot says: January 10, 2016 at 7:36 pm
The term “conservative” has become so twisted and mutilated by our politicians it no longer has meaning
to me. ALL of the Republicans throw that term out there—and just look at them—and what they do!
Donald Trump is in a category all his own. I would call him a common sense, America first patriot!"...
=============
"Hannibal Toissant Beauregard IV says: January 10, 2016 at 8:05 pm
The waters of conservatism have been muddied to the point where the term is basically meaningless."
==========
"Garrison Hall says: January 10, 2016 at 8:09 pm
To borrow a phrase from John Keegan, the military historian, Trump has “stolen a march” from the GOPe and they can’t stand it. Having these self-appointed gatekeepers try to tell us who is and who isn’t conservative is like listening Paul Ryan talk about “defunding” Obamacare—after he’s already shepherded full funding through congress. Yeah, right, establishment lackeys. Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining."
...........
===============
"Totally Domestic says: January 10, 2016 at 8:22 pm
They are just playing upon people’s fears. Truth is he’s TOO CONSERVATIVE for the Uniparty.
He literally puts his life on the line to stand against illegal immigration and jihadist coming into the USA.
That is conservative enough for me
.
I used to be a Cruz supporter now I’m for Trump all the way because he is sincere and loves this country and is working as hard as the energizer bunny to win my support. He is also spending his OWN money."
====================
"NJF says: January 10, 2016 at 8:35 pm
Great quote from a NYT article today considering the “…The Permanent Party Split”
“The Republican Party has never done anything for me, even though we’ve voted R for years. This election is the first time in my life where we can change what it means to be a republican.”
~L. Martin, 62 machinist
Trump rally in Claremont, NH"
====================
Added: Did you hear that Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan are "two conservative lawmakers"? Per Washington Examiner:
4/22/2015, "Cruz, Ryan urge Senate to pass Fast Track," Washington Examiner, Sean Higgins
"Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., penned a joint op-ed for the Wall Street Journal Wednesday calling on Congress to pass Trade Promotion Authority legislation. The two conservative lawmakers argue that the legislation, also known as "Fast Track," is urgently needed to strengthen the U.S.'s ability to negotiate future trade deals....
Fast Track would prohibit Congress from amending trade deals, limiting it to a strict up or down vote on passage. The White House argues the legislation is needed to strengthen its hand in future trade negotiations. Without it, they cannot assure foreign leaders that any deal they strike won't be picked apart by Congress."
==========
Comment: When did it become the job of Ted Cruz to assure so-called "foreign leaders" that the American people can be laughed at and spat upon without fear of consequence?
=================
Following is Paul Ryan-Ted Cruz Wall St. Journal April 2015 op-ed referenced above selling Fast Track. Unfortunately, Ryan and Cruz ("the two conseervative lawmakers") say Fast Track is the opposite of what it is. As stated in Washington Examiner article, Fast Track's purpose is to limit congress: "Fast Track would prohibit Congress from amending trade deals, limiting it to a strict up or down vote." This will "assure foreign leaders that any deal they strike won't be picked apart by Congress." So: "Ted Cruz joins the establishment," 4/22/2015, The Hill, by Rick Manning. [Before April 2015, I would've bet a lot of money that Ted Cruz would never do anything this unspeakable. I'm sorry to say I donated the maximum, $2700, to Ted Cruz the week he announced his candidacy. I'm now a Trump donor. Susan]
4/21/2015, "Putting Congress in Charge on Trade," Wall St. Journal op-ed by Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz
"‘Fast track’ authority will give lawmakers more say over agreements
that are vital for economic growth."
The United States is making headway on two historic trade agreements, one with 11 countries on the Pacific Rim and another with America’s friends in Europe. These two agreements alone would mean greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers.
But before the US can complete the agreements, Congress needs to strengthen the country's bargaining position by establishing trade promotion authority, also known as TPA which is an arrangement between Congress and the president for negotiating and considering trade agreements. In short, TPA is what U.S. negotiators need to win a fair deal for the American worker.
There is a lot at stake. One in five American jobs depends on trade, and that share is only going to grow. Ninety-six percent of the world’s customers are outside the U.S. To create more jobs here, America needs to sell more goods and services over there. When that happens, the American worker benefits. Manufacturing jobs tied to trade pay 16% more on average, according to a study released by the independent U.S. International Trade Commission.
Right now, though, the American worker isn’t competing on a level playing field against many overseas economies. The U.S. economy is one of the most open in the world—and for good reason. Thanks to lower duties on imports, the average American family saves $13,600 a year, according to a study by HSBC. But other countries put up trade barriers that drive up prices for U.S. goods and services and make it hard to sell them there.
The American worker can compete with anybody, if given a fair chance. If you add up all 20 countries that the U.S. has a trade agreement with, American manufacturers run a $50 billion trade surplus with them. The problem is that not all countries have a trade agreement with the U.S.; American manufacturers run a $500 billion trade deficit with those nations. That is why the U.S. needs effective trade agreements to lay down fair and strong rules that level the playing field. Without such rules, America’s trading partners will keep stacking the deck against job creators in this country.
But Congress can’t just take the administration’s word that it will drive a hard bargain. We have to hold it accountable, and that is what trade-promotion authority will help do.
Under TPA, Congress lays out three basic requirements for the administration. First, it must pursue nearly 150 specific negotiating objectives, like beefing up protections for U.S. intellectual property or eliminating kickbacks for government-owned firms. Second, the administration must consult regularly with Congress and meet high transparency standards.
And third, before anything becomes law, Congress gets the final say. The Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. So TPA makes it clear that Congress—and only Congress—can change U.S. law. If the administration meets all the requirements, Congress will give the agreement an up-or-down vote. But if the administration fails, Congress can hit the brakes, cancel the vote and stop the agreement.
Trade-promotion authority will hold the administration accountable both to Congress and to the American people. Under TPA, any member of Congress will be able to read the negotiating text. Any member will be able to get a briefing from the U.S. trade representative’s office on the status of the negotiations—at any time. Any member will get to be a part of negotiating rounds. And most important, TPA will require the administration to post the full text of the agreement at least 60 days before completing the deal, so the American people can read it themselves.
The stakes are high, because if you’re not moving forward in trade negotiations, you’re falling behind. In the first 10 years of this century, the countries of East Asia negotiated 48 trade agreements. The U.S., on the other hand, negotiated just two in that region. As a result, America’s share of East Asia’s imports fell by 42%. Every top U.S. competitor did better—every one of them.
Meanwhile, China is negotiating agreements with anyone who will listen—from South Korea and Australia to Norway. And it isn’t free enterprise the Chinese are pushing. Instead, it is their own form of crony capitalism. They’re writing rules that favor government-owned firms and hamper American job creators. So it all comes down to this question: Is China going to write the rules of the global economy, or is the United States?
By establishing TPA, Congress will send a signal to the world. America’s trading partners will know that the U.S. is trustworthy and then put their best offers on the table. America’s rivals will know that the U.S. is serious and won’t abandon the field. And the American people will know this trade agreement is a good, fair deal—because they’ll have the information they need to decide for themselves.
Promoting American trade will create more opportunity in the country, and so we strongly urge our colleagues in Congress to vote for trade-promotion authority."
"Rep. Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Sen. Cruz, a Republican from Texas, heads the Senate Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness."
=================
==================
4/22/2015, "Ted Cruz joins the establishment," The Hill, by Rick Manning, contributor
"Establishment, globalist advocates published what will go down as the most disingenuous, deceitful and outright dishonest promotional piece on behalf of the so-called fast-track trade authority that could have been written. Authored by establishment GOP Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and heretofore "conservative" Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the op-ed in The Wall Street Journal is a compilation of talking points and slick dodges. It is textbook propaganda that would make the disinformation experts of the KGB blush.
The
dynamic duo start by asserting that the U.S. must "strengthen the
country's bargaining position” by giving President Obama [and future presidents] fast-track
powers. Really? The GOP Congress thinks it is vital to our national
interest to expand the powers in [the Executive Branch's] Obama's hands? And, what exactly
"strengthens" our bargaining power?
So the only way to win a deal is by convincing foreign governments that the U.S. Congress will be limited in what it can say on the matter? Are we to tell the world that the people and their elected representatives will be sidelined so a "deal" can be done?
Next, Ryan and Cruz assert that the American worker has been
placed at a terrible disadvantage to workers in the rest of the world
and that we have to give Obama [and future presidents] more power in order to address this
serious problem. But, of course, nowhere is there a mention of the fact
that a big part of that "disadvantage" is currency manipulation and
other financial gimmicks — issues that are expressly kept out of the
trade deal. I guess nobody told these gentlemen that the primary weapon
being used against American workers and business is not going to be
discussed. Had they been allowed to read and review the so-called deal —
the Trans-Pacific Partnership — they might have known that. But sadly,
the Obama administration has kept the "deal" under lock and key —
virtually nobody has been allowed to view it.So the only way to win a deal is by convincing foreign governments that the U.S. Congress will be limited in what it can say on the matter? Are we to tell the world that the people and their elected representatives will be sidelined so a "deal" can be done?
But this is a minor matter compared to the bald-faced falsehoods that follow. The congressional odd couple assert that Congress will demand three things from Obama [or a future president], three "requirements" that will protect the nation. In truth, all three are hollow shells; the tools of bait and switch that have used to con America in the past. And what are three shells of the con game?
First, it asserted that there will be 150 "specific negotiating objectives." Sounds good, except these objectives are nothing more than suggestions. If Obama comes back with a treaty and none of these "objectives" are included, there is no effect. The treaty will still get the up-or-down vote. No amendments will be allowed to be offered. No two-thirds ratification vote in the Senate will occur. And of course, at that point, all the special interests — having been fed their fill — will demand passage. Are we to believe that Ryan and Cruz will vote against the treaty if the 150 "objectives" are not included? If that is the case, why do they not say so?
Second, it is asserted that the administration would be required to "consult" with Congress over the course of final negotiations. This is the "kissing your sister" argument — no meaning and slightly discomforting.
Finally, it is claimed that giving Obama [and future presidents] more power will enhance the power of Congress and thereby the American people. This is simply a lie.
Under the authority Ryan and Cruz want to give the administration, the powers given Congress under the Constitution are suspended. No amendments are allowed. U.S. law will be subjugated to a treaty that can be passed by a simple majority in the two houses. Hollywood and Wall Street will get what they want and the American taxpayers will be given the bill. So, gentlemen, how are the American people protected by suspending the Constitution? Is this the 2016 GOP platform — gather votes signing praises of the Constitution while moving to undercut and suspend it at will?
What is most troubling, however, is the disdain the advocates of this deal have for the American people. They babble on and on about abstract economic "benefits" when, in fact, trade is but a minor part of the matter. No less an authority than The Washington Post stated in an April 13 editorial that the treaty and fast track are "about geopolitics as well as economics."
These treaties are in fact far more about "politics" than economics or trade. These treaties are world governance infrastructure; they are big steps away from the Constitution, national sovereignty and independence. All the trade talk, all the blather about jobs and the confusing stream of questionable statistics are designed to cover the real thrust of these treaties: the expansion of international and globalist interests.
Why the GOP in Congress embraces the very process that would destroy it is a subject for another day, but it is enough to recognize that when they come to citizens begging for votes and donations claiming to defend the Constitution and our system of liberty, that they are being duplicitous Yet again, they treat the grass roots and the conservative base with contempt.
For Ryan to do this is expected, but Cruz's shilling for this big lie may be the last straw for those who became known as Tea Party supporters. The irony is that if they give up hope that America can be restored because they no longer have a champion, who is going to vote for Ted Cruz?
The answer is no one."
"Manning is president of Americans for Limited Government."
==================
================
Comment: This country simply needs to move beyond the grasp of Rockefeller Republicans and Fox News:
1/1/1964, Nelson Rockefeller campaigning for Republican nomination for President. When he failed to win the 1964 nomination, Rockefeller said GOP was being taken over by dangerous extremists whether Communists, Ku Klux Klan or John Birchers.
1/10/16, "Exclusive–Phyllis Schlafly Makes the Case for President Trump: ‘Only Hope to Defeat the Kingmakers’," Breitbart, Julia Hahn
"“Trump is the only hope to defeat the Kingmakers,” Schlafly told Breitbart resolutely. “Because everybody else will fall in line. The Kingmakers have so much money behind them.”
More than fifty years ago, Schlafly coined the term Kingmakers—or what Schlafly says is now “generally called the Establishment,” or donor class—to describe a select group of cosmopolitan elites who control the Republican Party and have historically determined the Party’s presidential nominee. Aspects of Schlafly’s Kingmaker theory have been articulated in, what is today known as, the “invisible primary” or “The Party Decides” theory."...
................
