Category Archives: Public Policy

Trump Holsters Missile Strikes on Iranians

Posted on by

He had them in his sights. All he had to do was say, “Go.”

His generals estimated that within 30 minutes 150 Iranians would not go home alive. As hard as the military tried to avoid it, there may have been civilians killed in the strike.

They refer to that as “collateral damage.” That does not make it sound so bad. After all, this is war. 

In the United States, there is one Commander in Chief who makes the decision. President Trump figuratively had the target(s) in his sights and his finger on the trigger. He made a final decision to lower his weapon and re-holster it – for now. 

In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd for Meet the Press, President Trump explained his decision. For the average American watching, his explanation was very clear, logical, and simple. There was no Washington-speak. 

He made it clear that nothing was final up until the point that he made the final decision. “Nothing is green-lighted until the very end because things change.” 

I took a double-dose of Alka-Seltzer and forced myself to read and watch media clips on CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, and New York Times. I wanted to see what kind of spin they would put on President Trump’s decision. 

As I expected, I saw headlines that included phrases like, “dangerous confusion”, “reversal”, “ordered attack, but called it off”, “sloppy handling”, Trump’s tale strains credulity.” The mainstream media, who just days before were clamoring that the President was bringing us to the brink of Armageddon,  were now saying that he was indecisive. 

It takes time to prepare for a strike, but a strike is not ordered until it is ordered. The mainstream media is intentionally misrepresenting what President Trump himself clearly explained. “Nothing is green-lighted.”

President Trump went on to explain to Chuck Todd that he weighed the response. “They shot down an unmanned drone, …. and here we are sitting with a 150 dead people that would have taken place probably within a half an hour after I said go ahead. And I didn’t like it, I didn’t think, I didn’t think it was proportionate.”

The mainstream media obviously cannot, or refuse to, understand plain language. The President prepared to respond and he easily could have responded. He made the decision that only he could make. 

It was a wise decision. The leaders of Iran need to understand what happened and be thankful that the President did not pull the trigger. He was fully justified if he had launched a retaliatory strike. 

In this case, he took another course of action. Iran knows what could have happened. 

Some say that now Iran will be more emboldened to act. I do not believe that is the case at all. Whether they ever publicly acknowledge it or not, Iran knows that they dodged a bullet and they have no one but President Trump to thank. 

Now, if Iran is wise, they will cease their mischievous behavior. This time, President Trump holstered missile strikes. They are foolish if they expect him to do it again. 

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Trump Wins Again – Mexico Acts Positively

Posted on by

Have you ever been in the grocery store and seen a parent, let’s say a mother, with a small child, let’s say a 3 year old boy. The little boy spots a bright shiny package of candy. The mother says, “you can’t have that, you need to put it back.” You know that this will go one of two ways and what happens next will reveal it all. 

One path could be that the little boy says, “yes ma’am” and puts it back as they continue to shop. End of story. 

Well, I try to keep my commentary short, but this is a little too short. Nowadays, unless the boy is shopping with his retired Marine Drill Sergeant uncle, that ending is a rarity. 

Here is the path this story more likely takes. After hearing, “you need to put it back,” the boy tightens his grip on the shiny package of candy, pulls it close to his chest and turns away from his mother. The mother says, “you know that candy is not good for you, so let’s put it back.”Little boy, “No.”

The mother, while still pushing the buggy down the aisle farther away from the candy, says, “well, you know that will give you a tummy ache and you won’t be able to sleep.” She extends her open hand toward the little boy to receive the package of candy. The little boy turns even farther away from his mother, pulling the candy even closer to his chest. He answers, even a little louder this time, “No!” 

Still pushing the buggy down the aisle and rounding the corner to the next aisle, the mother says, “Now, I’m not going to tell you again, we’ll have to put the candy back. I’ll tell you what, I’ll get a nice little toy for you. Won’t you give me the candy?” The little boy now shouts as other customers in the store turn and look. “No! I want this!” 

Fortunately for the mother, she was finished loading her cart so she continues the conversation with her little boy as she strolls to the checkout line. “You are making me sad and your father will be disappointed in you. Please give me the box of candy.” The little boy holds the candy even closer and twists farther away from his mother with another louder shout, “No! I want this!” 

Just before going through the line, the mother stops the buggy and walks to face the little boy as he has twisted far away from her. Now things are really serious. “Give that package to me now. I’m going to count to three. ………. One ………. Two ……….

Moments later, you see the mother pushing the buggy with everything checked and paid for heading out the door. The little boy is happily eating the candy and holding on to the new toy that his mother bought for him. 

This describes negotiations with other countries by the United States in recent history. China has cheated the world in trade deals and everyone knew it. It might be unfair to China to call it cheating since they were just going as far as they could go. 

Iran and North Korea defiantly developed nuclear weapons. The Obama administration made a deal with Iran that was so bad, it makes the mother in the story above look like a stern disciplinarian. 

Mexico, opened their doors for a pipeline of illegal immigration to the United States. Democrats in Congress refuse to support our Border Patrol to protect our citizens. President Trump declared an emergency and is building the wall in spite of the Democrat opposition. 

Then, Trump played another card to stop the flow of illegals through Mexico to the US. He told Mexico to change their behavior and act in a positive, responsible fashion. In other words, “put the candy back.” 

For decades, Mexico and all of these countries acted like the little boy in the grocery store. During those decades, Democrats and Republicans took turns playing the role of the mother. Predictably, every drama ended with the little boy happily eating his candy and playing with his new toy as they left the store. 

This time, Donald Trump is pushing the buggy. This time he set forth expectations and clear consequences that would take effect on June 10.

The mainstream media exploded with doom and gloom. Democrats and Republicans reacted saying that his move was a blunder. Like the 10 spies that Moses sent to the Promised Land, they were saying , “we became like grasshoppers in our own sight.” (Numbers 13:33 NASB)

Mexico, on the other hand, knew that Donald Trump would do what he said he would do. It would hurt them worse than it hurt the United States. 

Mexico deployed 6,000 troops to their Southern border with Guatemala. They took steps to stop the wide-open pipeline. They agreed to do more in a speedy fashion. 

Once again, Donald Trump put America first. The swamp denizens were shouting the equivalent of passages from the 1950’s child rearing advice of Dr. Benjamin Spock. Trump just looked Mexico in the eye and said the equivalent of, “you need to put the candy back.” 

After over two years with President Trump, Mexico knew what was about to happen. They chose to behave in a positive fashion. They put the candy back. Trump wins again!

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Mueller’s Hail Mary and Barr’s Interception

Posted on by

I watched Robert Mueller’s press conference. For over two years, I held on to a glimmer of hope that Mueller was trying to do a thorough investigation to find and report the facts. His press conference confirmed solidly in my mind that his entire investigation was not to find the truth but to find that President Trump committed a crime.

He could not find that President Trump committed a crime so he turned the foundational principles of justice on its head. With glaring hypocrisy, Mueller applied the principle of justice to indicted Russians when he said that he would not comment on their innocence or guilt because, “Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

In President Trump’s case, however, instead of reporting the facts that there was no evidence to charge the President with a crime, he turned the burden of proof upside down. While he extended the presumption of innocence to Russians, for President Trump he said, “if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

This sounds more like the famous swimming test of a witch trial than American justice. In the swimming test, the accused would be bound with ropes and thrown into a lake. If she somehow managed to get to the surface for air, it was clearly through means of witchcraft. If she sank, then she must not have been a witch.

In the Russian collusion investigation, Mueller also attempted to plant a seed of guilt where there was none. He said, “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.” Note the modifier, “broader.” He clearly intended to leave the impression that there could have been a conspiracy. It was just that if there was one, it was a county road conspiracy, not an I-75 conspiracy.

Mueller went on to say that he did not come to any conclusion because department policy prohibited charging a sitting President. He said, “we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.” Notice the careful use of words when he said that “we would not” not “we could not.”

Mueller’s argument on DOJ policy immediately raises a glaring question. If he was not going to come to a conclusion, then why did he waste millions of dollars over two years to write a 400 page gossip column?

Newt Gingrich quickly knocked down Mueller’s DOJ policy argument. He pointed out that Kenneth Starr’s report on the investigation of President Bill Clinton used the word, “guilty” eleven times with five of those being for obstruction of justice.

In an interview with Jan Crawford, Attorney General Bill Barr said that Mueller could have reached a conclusion. He and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were both surprised when Mueller did not.

Barr went even farther by pointing out that Mueller’s statement saying that he could not exonerate the President was not DOJ policy either. Barr said that Mueller’s standard of exoneration, “of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law.” There was no violation of the law. There was no narrow violation. There was no broad violation. There was no violation.

Mueller also said that the DOJ policy held that the Constitution puts the responsibility on Congress to formally accuse a sitting President. Barr said that he was not sure what Mueller was suggesting but that “the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. …we are not an extension of Congress’s investigative powers.”

Mueller concluded his press conference by saying that he would not take questions. He went on to say that he had no plans to testify further. Referring to his report, he said, “We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony.”

This raises another glaring question. If the report speaks for itself and is his testimony, then why hold a press conference?

There is a simple answer. Mueller was seeking to find that President Trump committed a crime. He could not because there was nothing to find. Bill Barr released the Mueller report six weeks ago. It was gaining no traction.

Mueller’s press conference was simply a Hail Mary pass. Bill Barr intercepted it in the end zone.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Sonny Hits 50 States

Posted on by
Sonny Perdue in Soybean Field
US Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue

While news coverage focuses on investigations, hearings, subpoenas, and other madness in Washington, DC, one member of the President’s cabinet has been steadily and persistently doing the job to which he has been called.

This week, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue visited his 50th state. In two years and a few weeks, he traveled to all 50 states plus Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and multiple foreign countries.

He made several RV tours, appropriately named, “Back to Our Roots.” Rolling down the back roads of rural America across multiple states he went to do something spectacular for which Washington, DC is not known. He went to listen.

His travels covered over 100,000 miles. He visited over 100 farms and held nearly 200 townhall meetings.

The people came to meet him. They gathered in barns, school gymnasiums, college campuses, churches, fields, town squares, cafeterias, processing plants, and the list goes on. Governors, members of Congress, State Legislators, County Commissioners, Mayors, farmers, ranchers, teachers, students, pastors, small business owners, homemakers, and small children came to meet Secretary Sonny.

Immediately after Sonny Perdue took the oath of office, President Trump directed him to head up a Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity. Ninety days later he completed the report with specific recommendations and action plans.

The top recommendation was to make broadband accessible to rural America. He compared it to the national investments in the 1930’s to provide electricity and telephone service to rural areas through the Rural Electrification Act and the Telecommunications Act.

Less than a week after he was sworn in, Sonny went to an elementary school in Virginia and announced that he was rolling back the onerous school lunch regulations of the Obama administration. School nutritionists, also known as the “lunchroom ladies” as he fondly recalled from his childhood, were spending more time trying to comply with rules than feed their students.

Even worse, they were helplessly watching as kids dumped their Obama Approved lunches in the trash. It didn’t take him long to trash the regulations and make school lunches great again.

He restructured the mission areas of USDA to focus on the customer. He slashed regulations. His top priority was opening markets for U.S. agricultural products. He told farmers, “if you grow it, we’ll help you sell it.”

Knowing that agriculture would be the prime target for retaliation by other nations against the President’s trade policy, he diligently worked with President Trump to provide some mitigation. No one likes what the Chinese and other nations are doing to U.S. agriculture but he stands with the President in addressing issues that have been swept under the rug for decades. Farmers, although hurt, are standing with the President.

Sonny took another step that is unheard of in Washington, D.C. He reached out to other agencies to coordinate efforts in overlapping responsibilities.

He was perhaps the most outspoken cabinet member calling on the EPA to get rid of the burdensome and intrusive Waters of the US (WOTUS) Rules. He worked closely with the Department of Labor to help farmers navigate the cumbersome H2A Visa process.

Where the Food and Drug Administration had legal responsibility for some areas of food safety, he worked with them to align USDA regulations. When it came to the farmers, he was like a protective mother bear. He bluntly made it clear that he did not want to have FDA inspectors, who knew nothing about farming, to be treating farms like a pharmacy inspection.

He made sure that USDA had a seat at the table to help shape rules in other agencies so agriculture’s voice was heard. HUD, Department of Energy, Homeland Security, Department of Interior, and more have the fingerprints of Sonny Perdue.

Sonny Perdue’s vision for USDA is that it is the most effective, most efficient, most customer focused agency in the federal government. Just as he did when he was Georgia’s Governor, that vision will come about.

He adopted a motto for USDA, “Do Right and Feed Everyone.” When these trade disputes are resolved and America’s farm products can start flowing in free and open markets, America will be sending food to all corners of the globe to help make that motto a reality.

Fifty states visited in two years. That is doing right.

Congratulations on that Mount Everest of a milestone. America is blessed to have you serve and Georgians are proud of you.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

The Deception of the Equality Act

Posted on by

Last Friday, the Democrat controlled US House of Representatives passed H.R. 5, the Equality Act. That sounds like a noble title. We are a nation of laws and they should be applied in an equal manner.

As with many laws passed in Congress, the name is deceptive. It purports to provide protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The truth is that it is an assault on religious freedom and it directly attacks the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

If you live in Southwest Georgia, you may wonder how your Congressman voted. Sanford Bishop not only voted for it, he was a proud co-sponsor.

The Equality Act amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act to elevate sexual orientation and gender identify to the same status as “race, color, religion, or national origin”. It would now read, “race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin.” There are other significant changes to the Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act has a lengthy list of establishments where discrimination is prohibited. The Equality Act adds:

  • “stadium or other place of or establishment that provides exhibition, entertainment, recreation, exercise, amusement, public gathering, or public display.”
  • “any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services.”

It goes further to re-define the word establishment to include, “an individual whose operations affect commerce and who is a provider of a good, service, or program; and (2) shall not be construed to be limited to a physical facility or place.”

It expands the list of establishments and goods and services so that just about anything anywhere is caught in its net. A church or private school that has a gym or family life center would be included. Even broader is “public gathering or public display.”

Under the services it also expands the list by slipping in new ones. Among them are service centers, care centers, shelters, travel agency, and health care.

In Anchorage, Alaska in January 2018, Timothy “Samantha” Coyle, who identifies himself as a female, attempted to enter the Downtown Hope Center. It is a Christian shelter for homeless and battered women. They sleep on mats on the floor and take them up during the day to have room for other programs.

Coyle was drunk and injured from a fight. The Hope Center staff obtained transportation to the hospital for him. The next day he again showed up outside of the hours for overnight admission. Two days later he filed a complaint with the city’s Equal Rights Commission claiming that Hope Center, as a “public accommodation,” discriminated against him because of gender identity.

The Equality Act re-defines the term, “establishment” to include individuals. This is clearly targeting cases such as the cake baker, Jack Phillips, in Colorado. He designs custom cakes and declined to design a cake for a same-sex wedding. The state of Colorado charged him with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

The day after the Supreme Court ruling, a transgender lawyer came to Phillips requesting that he design a cake to celebrate a gender transition. When Phillips refused, the state of Colorado again charged him with discrimination.

This time it was on the basis of gender identity. Phillips responded with a lawsuit against the state for harassment. Eventually the case was dropped.

Section 1107 targets the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act by name. It says that act “shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim.”

This law has nothing to do with equality. We can already see the consequences of this law based on what has happened with similar municipal ordinances and state laws, such as Colorado’s.

Americans do not care to know about a person’s sexual orientation. They definitely have no interest in making a biological determination of someone’s gender. Neither do they wish to allow someone decide that they will “identify” as the opposite sex and invade the privacy of others.

The bill now goes to the Senate. I trust that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will exile the bill to the island of misfit law where it belongs.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Democrats on the Wrong Side of Life

Posted on by

House Bill 481, commonly referred to as the Heartbeat Bill, passed in the Georgia House and the Senate. Now it will go back to the House for approval with Senate Amendments.

With some specified exceptions, the bill outlaws an abortion when the doctor can detect the heartbeat of the unborn child. The votes in the House and Senate were both along party lines.

Republicans voted to protect the innocent. Democrats voted to allow the killing of the innocent.

I checked the votes of Democrat legislators from Southwest Georgia. What I saw was disturbing. 

On the Senate side, Democrat Ed Harbison Senate District 15 voted No and Democrat Freddie Powell Sims Senate District 12 voted No. 

On the House side, Democrat Winfred Dukes House District 154 Voted No. Democrat Camia Hopson House District 153 Voted No. Democrat Patty Bentley House District 139 had an excused absence from voting. 

All of these Democrats are African-American. The African-American constituency, especially in the church-going rural South, has been unapologetically opposed to abortion. 

I have worshiped with African-American congregations. We have worked together for our community. I have never heard a church member or pastor imply that abortion was an option. 

They all recognize that an expecting mother is carrying one of their children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, or friends. They all know that God does not make mistakes and the pregnancy is no accident. They all recognize that this child in the mother’s womb is a precious gift that has a heritage and will one day leave a legacy. 

Every single Democrat in the Georgia Legislature from Southwest Georgia, with the possible exception of Representative Patty Bentley, voted in direct opposition to their constituency. How is it that elected Democrats can throw these foundational beliefs to the side of the road to follow a party line? 

They know that their constituents are pro-life. They hear the messages from the pulpit and in Bible Study week after week. They know what God says. They also know how they voted.

Instead of following the prophetic voice of righteousness, they followed the party line of wretchedness. My African-American friends, this is not merely a political issue. 

No matter what race you are, if Patty Bentley (404-656-0287), Winfred Dukes (404-656-0126), or Camia Hopson (404-656-0287), represents you in the Georgia House of Representatives, call them and tell them to stand up and vote for life.

You have an influence. You can stand for justice and righteousness by making a phone call.

Isaiah 5:20 says, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Democrat Stacey Abrams called HB 481, “this abominable bill.” HB 481 is not an abominable bill. 

The cruel killing of unborn babies is the abomination – and Democrats in Southwest Georgia voted to keep it going.

Your vote is being taken for granted. For the sake of your unborn children, do not let them keep using you. 

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

It is Time to Break the Silence

Posted on by

On the 46th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the New York State Senate and visitors in the Senate gallery erupted in a celebratory standing ovation when the bill passed that allowed abortions at any stage of pregnancy. The bill also eliminated the requirement that a medical doctor perform an abortion and it decriminalized the mandate to care for a baby born alive after the abortionist failed to kill the child before it exited the birth canal.

The consequences of this law are clear. Organizations like Planned Parenthood will be able to significantly reduce overhead expenses of their abortion clinics. Nurses and Physician Assistants are less expensive to hire than licensed Physicians. A very real consequence to the removal of the mandate to care for a live born baby is that a child born alive could be merely left to die.

The most horrific consequence of this law is that it now gives body part brokers another 3 months to grow a more profitable baby to dissect and sell to the highest bidder. It will happen.

The law also strikes a blow to violence against women. It removed penalties for harming a child in the womb during an assault.

New York resident, Livia Abreu was in her 26th week of pregnancy when her boyfriend stabbed her in the stomach, killing her unborn child. He was charged for assault and the death of her child. Under the new law, there is no crime against the unborn child.

A few days after the New York law, the State of Virginia attempted to pass a similar law. Fortunately during committee deliberations, Republican House Majority Leader asked Delegate Kathy Tran, the bill’s sponsor, directly if the bill allowed an abortion even as the mother was about to give birth.

Tran tried to avoid the question but finally had to acknowledge that the bill did, in fact, allow the killing of the child even while the mother was giving birth. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam revealed more when he described what is happening even now:

“The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”

This has not been blown out of proportion at all. It is very clear that a living child could be left to die, in comfort of course, unless the mother asked that the baby be resuscitated.

Between the Planned Parenthood undercover videos, the standing ovation in the New York Senate, and the debate in Virginia, America is getting a glimpse of the truth. Abortion has raised its ugly head and we recoil in shock. Too many have remained silent for too long.

Some Catholics called for the excommunication of Governor Cuomo. He did not merely sign the bill carrying out his civil responsibility as Governor. He endorsed the bill, pushed for its passage, and sent out a message on social media celebrating its passage and directing that the One World Trade Center be lit in pink.

It is evident that Cuomo is not repentant and shows no indication that he intends to repent. Yet he is very quick to throw on the Catholic mantle when it suits his needs.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan has said that he will not excommunicate Cuomo. It appears that Cuomo will carry on his charade while Cardinal Nolan looks the other way.

It is time to break the silence and directly question those whose silence allows these policies. The plain truth is that there is a clear distinction between the two major political parties on the practice of abortion.

The bill in New York passed this year because Democrats finally gained a majority in the state legislature. For years Republicans blocked such outrageous bills.

The bill introduced in Virginia died in committee along a party line vote. Democrats voted for it, Republicans voted against it.

The Democrat platform calls to overturn prohibitions against taxpayer funded abortions. It calls for support of Planned Parenthood. Republicans, in their platform, are on record against both.

African Americans and Catholics comprise a significant voting block in the Democrat party. African Americans and Catholics oppose abortion.

There is a disconnect that enables the Democrat party to aggressively promote abortion legislation. They have tossed the old arguments of “safe” and “legal but rare” to the side of the road hundreds of miles ago. They watered down requirements for safe medical facilities and licensed physicians.

The “Women’s Health” mantra is a fraud. It is evident that the real interest of Democrats is to increase the profit margins of abortionists like Planned Parenthood.

The traditional Democrat voting blocks do have an influence. Pastors can call out the politicians who lend credence to the culture of death in the abortion industry.

This should not be about partisan politics, but it is. No one can deny the stark truth.

You may be one of those who has always voted Democrat. Open your eyes to the truth of what is happening. It is time to break the silence.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

President Trump’s Compromise

Posted on by

Friday afternoon, President Trump announced that he would sign a bill to fund the government for three more weeks and end the government shutdown. He accepted the Democrat proposal to first open the government and then they will discuss the President’s request for border security.

It was evident on the President’s face that this was not something he wanted to do. He knew that the headlines would be, “Trump Caves.”

President Trump did not cave. He compromised. There is a big difference.

A cave is when one party gives in without fighting to win on their position. They may talk a great deal but do not put up a fight because they never intended to put up a fight.

A compromise on the other hand is when both parties come to an agreement to resolve an issue. Both parties come out of the deal with something and both parties give up something.

President Trump’s position was to fund the government and include border security provisions with physical barriers, commonly referred to as a wall. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer said, no wall.

Both made small concessions along the way. Trump’s recommendation changed from wall to steel slats that allowed border guards to see through to the other side. He later threw in provisions to address the issue of children who had been brought to the United States illegally by their parents.

Pelosi and Schumer softened their position from “no wall” to a short term bill of a few weeks to open the government. During that period, they assured the President that there would be serious and meaningful bi-partisan discussions to fund border security.

The President had serious reservations about Democrats actually operating in good faith. He did not want to play the role of Charlie Brown to have Lucy (Pelosi and Schumer) snatch the football away again.

President Trump knew that the shutdown was putting a financial strain on impacted federal employees. The strain was showing, particularly in air travel.

During the shutdown, President Trump has been talking with members of Congress. Some meetings were well publicized while many were out of the limelight.

His statement below summarizes the spirit of the compromise.

After 36 days of spirited debate and dialogue, I have seen and heard from enough Democrats and Republicans that they are willing to put partisanship aside, I think, and put the security of the American people first. I do believe they are going to do that.

They have said they are for complete border security and they have finally and fully acknowledged that having barriers, fences, or walls or whatever you want to call it, will be an important part of the solution. A bipartisan conference committee of House and Senate lawmakers and leaders will immediately begin reviewing the requests of our homeland security experts, and experts they are, and also law enforcement professionals who have worked with us so closely.

The key in this statement is the agreement to have a bipartisan conference committee. A conference committee is generally formed after the House and Senate pass a bill with slight differences. The conference committee meets to work out the differences and present the same bill to both chambers for final approval.

The bipartisan makeup of the committee means that Democrats and Republicans will both be at the same table talking with each other. They will not be talking at each other via 30 second sound bites.

The address was originally scheduled for 1:00 pm last Friday. It was almost 2:30 before the President spoke. That delay indicates that he was working on this address, probably making phone calls, and finalizing agreements up until the last minute.

President Trump wanted a bill that included funding for a wall. He believed that he could strike some agreement to get it done.

Democrat leadership refused to talk. As time went on, the focus of attention turned more and more to the impact of the government shutdown and away from the crisis at the border.

The President decided to eat humble pie. He agreed to the appeals he was hearing from both sides to open the government. The compromise agreement is in the best interest of all Americans.

President Trump displayed leadership in fighting for his position. He displayed leadership by taking action to move the issue forward. He displayed statesmanship by putting trust in both parties to work together on a conference committee in good faith.

President Trump kept his part of the agreement. Within hours of giving his address, the President signed the bill to give full back pay and put federal workers back to work.

Furloughed federal workers are no longer an issue. Now, the issue is solely on border security and funding a wall to address the crisis on our Southern border.

The President recognizes the process that the Founding Fathers built into our constitutional government. Technically, the President could declare a national emergency and act unilaterally.

He believes that Congress should recognize the crisis at the Southern Border. They should acknowledge the crisis by funding border security.

The President has done his part. Now, it is in the hands of Congress. President Trump did not cave. He compromised. There is a big difference.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

The Shutdown, Charlie Brown, Lucy, and Football

Posted on by

Peanuts is an American classic. One of the ordeals for Charlie Brown is his repeated misplaced trust in Lucy holding the football for kickoff. 

Time after time, Lucy assures Charlie that she will hold the football. Charlie hesitates because she always pulls the football away. 

Finally, Charlie again trusts Lucy and races forward to kick the ball. At the last split second, Lucy snatches the ball out of the way. Charlie flips backwards through the air, landing on his back with a thud.

In some ways this is a good analogy of what is going on between the Democrats and President Trump in the government shutdown. 

The latest proposals from the Democrats provide for opening the government for two or three weeks. During the two or three weeks, the Democrats promise that they will make an honest and diligent effort to consider the President’s request for border security. 

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called on the President to postpone his State of the Union address. It is scheduled for January 29. She wants him to wait until the government is reopened. 

She also suggested that he deliver it in writing rather than a televised address to the American people. Her request is understandable given her poor performance with Chuck Schumer in their response to President Trump’s Whitehouse address on border security. 

So far, the President is not buying it. He is standing firm. 

Democrats are playing the role of Lucy. They promise that if President Trump will sign a bill to fund the government for just two or three weeks, they can work things out.

The script assures us that Charlie Brown will finally trust Lucy. There is a big difference this time. President Trump is not Charlie Brown. 

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Dear Congressman Bishop

Posted on by

Last Wednesday I called my Congressman, Sanford Bishop, Democrat, 2nd District of Georgia. I left a simple message with his kind receptionist. 

“Part ways with Nancy Pelosi and represent your district by funding the President’s request. If you have not called, will you take a moment to do that? 202-225-3631. 

Earlier this morning, I also sent the following message. 

Dear Congressman Bishop,

Represent your constituents. Part ways with Nancy Pelosi. Cross the aisle, and vote to secure the borders and reopen the government.

In his address to the American people, President Trump said that this entire shut down could be resolved in 45 minutes with sincere negotiation. 

Thus far the Democrats have been hypocritical. If you insist on listening to and voting as Nancy Pelosi directs, then you, too, will be hypocritical. 

For years politicians on both sides of the aisle have talked about the need for stronger border security. I have read statement after statement from Presidents and leaders from both parties, including the the present Democrat leadership that you are following.

You know that some of those crossing the border are ruthless and merciless criminals. They bring innocent victims along with them.

Reports are that one third of the women who are on caravans to try to illegally cross the open border are victims of horrendous rape and sexual assault along the way. 

Statistics like this indicate that many of the people funding and leading these caravans are not humanitarians helping families seek the American dream. Rather it reveals that these are criminals callously treating women and children as mere commodities in modern day slavery and sex trafficking. 

Now you are inflicting even more pain by allowing the government to shut down. As I write you, federal employees are due a paycheck. It won’t come today.

President Trump said that he would own the shutdown. He may own the shutdown, but you own the solution. 

You voted for the Secure Fence Act when President George W. Bush asked for it. Chuck Schumer voted for it. Today, when the crisis at the border is even worse, you suddenly make a 180 degree turn. Why? 

It is not because of policy. Border security is an American issue, not a party issue.

It is not a funding question. I have not heard one word asking what to cut in order to fund the request.

There is only one reason for the sudden change. It is a political issue to keep President Trump from fulfilling a campaign promise. This is childish behavior. 

Even more childish, it is a personality issue about Donald Trump himself. It is time to put away childish behavior.

It is time for you listen to your constituents. It is time to part ways with Nancy Pelosi. It is time to cross the aisle.  

Vote to secure the borders, and reopen the government.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather