December 2016

While the most arrogant President in modern American history pontificates that if only he had been permitted to run for a third term he would have been easily reelected, President-elect Donald Trump is methodically preparing to assume office as the first true reformer since Ronald Reagan. Media pundits love to speculate on what Trump’s “First 100 Days” will look like. However, the country’s 45th President-in-waiting likely will press an agenda that can accomplish more in his first month than most of his predecessors accomplished in their first year.

After all, what is so magical about the “first 100 days”? It is nothing more than an arbitrary benchmark for critics and supporters of a new president to cheer or denounce the new White House occupant. Moreover, there is much a new president can accomplish immediately on assuming office and in the days following. For President Trump, a few recommended “first steps:”

1. Deliver a bold foreign policy address at a major international forum, within one week of January 20th.

As last week’s terror attacks in Germany and Turkey continue to demonstrate, dealing with acts of terrorism will face Trump as soon as he is sworn in. As I wrote last week, America remains in desperate need of a foreign policy reboot. Obama’s default position has been one of submission; an odd mixture of mealy-mouthed rhetoric, coupled with efforts to shift focus away from the real problem – radical Islamic terrorism — to pet domestic agenda concerns such as gun control.

Trump needs immediately to signal a change in course. To do this, he must demonstrate a clear shift from the “kinder and gentler” mentality of the Obama Administration, to a bold and firm declaration that our enemies once again shall be on notice that any attack on America, her citizens, or her interests, will be met with force. Furthermore, just as he did when he took the historic call from the Taiwanese president, Trump should make it clear that no other country – especially China – will be dictating what we can or should do when pursuing what is best for America.

2. Ignite America’s energy policy.

Trump’s declaration of a new American foreign policy must be coupled with a sweeping reform of America’s energy policy. To help secure our long-term security, America must become more energy self-sufficient — a direction abandoned by Obama in favor of “green energy” subsidies and favors to global warming activists and liberal donors.

As President, Trump will have the power to – and therefore should — take steps immediately to undo many of the anti-energy policies implemented by his predecessor. Thus, within his first days in office, Trump should approve the fourth phase of the Keystone XL Pipeline; which collected cobwebs on Obama’s desk for six years, only to be symbolically rejected when Democrats needed to score P.R. points with their liberal base.

Trump also should instruct the Army Corp of Engineers to reverse its decision to block the proposed North Dakota Access Pipeline — a decision made after intense pressure from Obama and his cadre of environmental extremists.

These two shots across the bow of the Oil Cartel and the environmental lobby will make clear there is a New Sheriff in Town who will indeed put America back to work and in charge.

3. Restore Justice and Federalism.

For eight years, our once vaunted Department of Justice has been politicized and used as a club to beat up on and control local law enforcement agencies. Rehabilitating the Justice Department’s shattered reputation, and restoring a proper balance between federal and state/local law enforcement responsibilities should be among the highest priorities for the new President. So long as the reputation of the United States Department of Justice remains at an all-time low, credibility of all federal agencies and responsibilities will continue to erode.

To set the stage for a rebirth of Justice, as soon as Jeff Sessions is confirmed by the Senate as the nation’s 84th Attorney General, the new President should deliver a major policy address, from the Great Hall at the Department of Justice,declaring in clear and unambiguous terms, that the “war on cops” is over, and that historically and constitutionally-based priorities at the Department will be restored and implemented.

4. Nominate Sen. Mike Lee to fill the vacancy of the Supreme Court.

This is a no-brainer, and should announced as early as January 21st. It will send Liberals into conniption fits, but put a smile on the face of Lady Justice.

These four simple but important steps by the new President Trump will set the stage for a rebirth of the Constitution at home; place the country on a firm, new path to security and energy independence; and lay the groundwork for the legislative challenges facing the Administration in the following months, including repeal of Dodd-Frank, and repeal and replacing Obamacare.

In Roman ruler Julius Caesar’s account of the Gallic Wars, written in the ancient manuscript Commentarii de Bello Gallico, he describes the principle of “murum aries attigit” – which states that a soon-to-be-conquered city would be offered conditions of surrender by the Romans, but only “before the battering-ram should touch the wall.” And, should it touch the wall, no longer would such mercy would be shown, and only total devastation would follow. The doctrine was meant to foster a diplomatic resolution by dissuading further hostilities with the very real threat of no alternative but death.

In recent years the Russian government, under Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, has adopted a similar doctrine in its response to Islamic terrorism. This approach was first displayed in 2002 when Putin used unconventional – some might say “brutal” — methods of subduing 40 Chechan rebels who had stormed a Moscow theater, taking more than 850 hostages. The raid on the theater, which included the use of a “knock-out” gas, unintentionally resulted in the death of more than 100 hostages. Putin brushed aside criticism, noting the rescue saved hundreds of other hostages while killing all the Islamic terrorists. Moreover, as Putin stated, the response “proved it is impossible to bring Russia to its knees.”

Such a heavy-handed response to a terrorism is utterly unthinkable in Obama World. While Putin has adopted the murum aries attigit doctrine against terrorism, Obama has opted instead for a policy that virtually ignores the very existence of Islamic terrorism. How Russia is likely to respond to this week’s assassination of its Ambassador to Turkey, compared to America’s own responses to recent acts of terrorism, including its own assassinated Ambassador to Libya in 2012, presents a stark contrast in leadership in the post-911 world.

Immediately following the assassination Monday of Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov, in which the attacker stood over the body shouting support of global jihad, Putin promised to escalate its fight against terrorism, and warned those “bandits” responsible for the assassination “will feel this happening.” Compare this to the Obama Administration’s tepid and waveringan response to the 2012 terror attack on an American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya. Despite knowing almost immediately the attack was a planned terror attack, Obama’s State Department – led by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – denied any connection to Islamic terrorism, and declared the attack was merely a “spontaneous protest” over a YouTube video that got out of hand. Later, when this was proven to be a bald-faced lie, Obama intentionally stonewalled congressional investigations into the many security failures that led to the attack.

There was no declaration of definitive action by Washington, or promise of swift retribution. Such obfuscation of facts, and dodging having to verbally recognize the threat of Islamic terrorism, has been the standard response to acts of terrorism at home and abroad under Obama. For example, Obama and his Democratic cronies in Congress used the 2015 terrorist shooting spree in San Bernardino, California not to announce a commitment to wiping ISIS from the map, but as an excuse to talk about “gun control.” In response to the massacre earlier this year at an Orlando nightclub popular in the gay community, Obama pushed a politically coded message about “tolerance.”

Obama’s inability to accept the reality of global terrorism for fear of offending the globalist community or a cherished interest group, and the lack of definitive action beyond waiting and seeing whether the “international community” will first “come together” to help “degrade” and “manage” such attacks on U.S. citizens and interests, has created a vacuum in which ISIS and its lone-wolf converts are actively plotting future attacks. In fact, Obama’s response to terrorism, if doing so at all, has been so backwards that Al Qaeda even struggles with making sure it gets proper credit for its activities — suggesting attackers target Caucasians so as to avoid such attacks being labeled “hate crimes” rather than terrorism.

Putin is far from a model leader, but his strong, consistent and definitive response to terrorism leaves no doubt where Russia stands on combatting global terrorism, or what its response will be to those who seek to do Russia harm. Fortunately for America, Obama’s time in office is finally coming to a close, and our next president, Donald Trump, does not look to be one to keep the battering ram from the wall for long.

Days before the November 8th election, the biggest question from Democrats was not if their candidate would win (which in their minds was never in doubt), but how Trump would handle losing. Would he concede with grace, or would he go down kicking-and-screaming, like a toddler whose favorite toy was taken away? Talk about a vicious role reversal.

Ironically, now more than a month removed from Election Day, it seems the Democrats are the ones in desperate need of a group pacifier. In whatever scenario they envisioned for how Trump would lose the election, the Left has surely surpassed it with their fits of screaming about “Russian hacking” and “fake news” costing them the election.

Adding to their PESD (post-election stress disorder) has been Trump’s excellent picks for his cabinet; demonstrating a clear commitment to reforming how the Executive Branch operates. This stark change from the previous two administrations, in which government power was vastly extended across the board, has created a reaction similar to that seen in 1980, when the full extent of the political reset from the Jimmy Carter years became apparent with Ronald Reagan’s cabinet selections.

The hard reality of not only losing the election, but losing an important tool to pushing their agenda by using regulatory rulemaking to bypass Congress, has sent liberals into a full-blown conniption fit. Meanwhile, conservatives and the working class finally catch a breath of fresh air.

Here is a look at just a few of such picks:

As I have written previously, Trump’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, will shift the focus of the Justice Department away from the current Administration’s witch-hunts among local police departments, and its politicization of priorities within various substantive divisions within the Department. Sessions comes from a more traditional, real-crimes based approach to federal law enforcement policy, and will work to reduce the footprint of the Department in control over local police departments, and refocus its priorities on proper federal law enforcement issues.

At the EPA, Trump’s nominee, Scott Pruitt, looks to reform what has been one of the worst offending agencies in abusing its regulatory power to push a partisan agenda. In so doing, Pruitt would start putting taxpayer dollars into environmental programs that foster genuine conservation and protection of natural resources, rather than continuing to prosecute political wars against coal and in support of “global warming” – hallmarks of the Obama Administration for the past eight years. This could mean an end to onerous environmental regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan and overbearing CAFE standards; it would also mean a big boost to jobs in industries such as agriculture and energy, which would be freed from regulatory burdens that inhibit growth and innovation.

The Labor Department is also due for serious reshaping with the nomination of Andrew Puzder, Chief Executive of CKE Restaurants. Unlike the typical career bureaucrat at Labor, whose closest connection to job creation has been through academic treatises and pro-union regulations, Puzder is responsible for employing tens of thousands of working-class Americans. Because of this experience in the private sector — specifically in the restaurant industry where labor regulations, like raising the federal minimum wage or Obama’s recent overtime rules, determine the fate of millions of jobs — Puzder will be a crucial voice in curtailing oppressive labor regulations.

Trump also nominated Betsy DeVos, a champion of school choice, to head the Department of Education – a perfect fit for her at a department that under both Obama and Bush, attempted to extend its reach from Washington into the classrooms of communities across America. The appointment of DeVos harkens back to the days when the GOP was actually serious about keeping control of school districts in the hands of local communities. It is unlikely we will see anything the likes of “No Child Left Behind” coming from a Department of Education headed by DeVos.

Predictably, of course, these and other Trump cabinet picks have thrown the Left into fits of rage. Nary has a single Democrat stepped forward to ponder that perhaps having a job creator as Secretary of Labor might make some sense. Who on the left has the guts to recognize that EPA need not be an industry killer in order to protect the environment within the bounds of federal jurisdiction? And, with the Left held hostage by the Black Lives Matter movement, there is no room to acknowledge that an Attorney General who actually supports good local policing benefits all citizens.

Watching the Left melt down in agony over Trump’s cabinet choices will be a humorous side show; but the tangible benefits that will result from what the President-elect is doing will be magnificent to behold.

In just over a month since winning the 2016 presidential election — and more than that away from even assuming the duties of President — it would seem Donald Trump has withstood more media scrutiny than Barack Obama did during his entire eight years in office. From who Trump is considering for cabinet positions, to simply having a steak dinner without the media asking him what on the menu looks good, Trump’s every move is dissected by a Mainstream Media machine looking for the tiniest slip-up. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen would send steam shooting from their ears.

“Honestly, this is just *insane*,” MSNBC flack Chris Hayes feverishly pecked on Twitter after reports of the call; joined by others in the liberal media basically accusing Trump of being “ignorant” to the diplomatic differences between “China” (as in the People’s Republic of China, or PRC) and “Taiwan” (as in the Republic of China, or ROC), and bemoaning how it might provoke the Chinese. However, just as he was constantly underestimated by the media during the entire campaign season, I suspect Trump knew exactly what he was doing by taking the call.

Beyond merely the raging antipathy liberals in the media have for Trump, they claim Trump has no right to violate a four-decades-long “One China” policy that ignores our long-time ally of Taiwan, in favor of the Beijing regime. This is utter nonsense. The ROC is a sovereign nation; albeit one that the U.S. and most other nations have decided is less important diplomatically than the PRC. However, there is no impediment under international or U.S. law for someone in the U.S. communicating with an official from Taiwan. Given the many recent (and unprovoked) belligerent actions of the Chinese against the Taiwanese, the U.S., and other nations in the Pacific rim (the fly-bys of Taiwan by Chinese war planes, the creation of man-made, military “islands” in international waters, to name just a few examples), it is perhaps more important than ever such communications exist.

Presidents, beginning with Jimmy Carter and continuing to the current occupant of the White House, may be okay with treating Taiwan like a cross-eyed step child, but considering the increasingly cozy Sino-Russian relationship, which clearly is aligned against the long-term strategic interests of the United States, it may be far better to have a President who is willing to buck the status quo. While the U.S. and other nations may have decided in previous decades — for whatever reason(s) — to recognize diplomatically “One China,” it certainly does not mean we should never reevaluate that position, or refuse to deal with a long-term and consistent strategic ally like Taiwan. In fact, a more open dialogue with Taiwan may perhaps even improve our military posture vis-à-vis the PRC, and our negotiations (direct and indirect) regarding Beijing.

The only way to truly know is to make the first step, which Trump already has done.

More importantly, perhaps, is the message Trump is sending to the world with “The Call.” For the last eight years, American foreign policy was crafted by feckless bureaucrats in the Obama Administration, whose default position in engaging with other nations, especially other superpowers, was one of submission. Obama has been shown repeatedly to be vastly outmatched by Putin on the global scale, looking much like a wimp crying at a bully during Russia’s hostilities against Ukraine in a crisis that continues to this day. Also, let us not forget that Obama unthinkably paid a ransom to Iran, just to gain its cooperation in a nuclear deal in which Tehran had the upper hand from the very get-go. As it has been said many times, Obama has stood flatfooted and paralyzed in fear as the world continues to crumble in the absence of real leadership coming from the United States.

If the call with Taiwan is any indication, the routine posture of submission looks to change dramatically under President Trump. “The president of the United States should talk to whomever he wants if he thinks it’s in the interest of the United States,” said former UN Ambassador John Bolton of Trump’s now-historic call. “And nobody in Beijing gets to dictate who we talk to.” Such a bold attitude towards American exceptionalism is a welcomed change in international relations. And all it took was a single phone call.