What If Donald Trump Doesn’t Sink the Republican Party?

National Review ^ | June 25, 2017 | DAVID HARSANYI

[Hugin]

Fifteen of the 40 signed bills repeal Obama-era regulations. Examples of these regulations include a rule that made it tougher for states to drug test welfare recipients and a regulation that imposed permitting requirements on mining sites. These bills signed by President Trump utilized the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to nullify any rule or regulation created in the previous administration’s final six months.

Trump said in a tweet Friday that he’s “gotten rid of massive amounts of regulations.” The president is now hoping to sign an Obamacare repeal bill.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3564086/posts

[Yosemitest]

Thanks for the links.

[Freedom56v2]

People have been “shining the light of truth” (a phrase originated by Rush) on the corruption of Washington for decades.
It’s just that most of the Trumpsters weren’t listening, because they were too busy watching “The Apprentice” and drinking beer, to be involved in politic
-—————————————————————’

I am well aware of the phrase and it has been around before Rush...I meant shine a light on corruption in Washington. He has exposed the uniparty—in a way no one has in the past—Franky I think Rush was rather late to the party in exposing the globalist uniparty, but that is for another thread.

Frankly, I and many others believe it was no accident that he won that election. He is the right President for this time in our history. The ferocity with which the media, uniparty, and democrats are fighting against Trump tells me he is truly trying to change things!

FRiend, I feel sorry for you because, clearly you don’t like or at least don’t trust President Trump, yet it doesn’t get any better than this. I don’t know who you supported during the campaign, but no candidate on the stage with Trump and no president since Reagan has had the mission to make government more representative of We the People.

[fireman15]

Unlike most Trump supporters, I can actually look up ORIGINAL SOURCES to find the truth.
I don't believe every LIE that Trump spews out.

What lies? What original sources? What special abilities and/or access do you possess that the rest of us do not?What are you even talking about? During my career I responded to hundreds of calls with people suffering from mental illness. You are delusional and I pray for your own sake that you get some help.

[trisham]

Thank you.

[Yosemitest]

"... President Trump, yet it doesn’t get any better than this. "

BULL !
I could be much, MUCH BETTER !
And you don't have to go very far back into history to SEE "BETTER than this" !

Excerpt From
President Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address to the Nation.
January 11, 1989


President Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address to the Nation. January 11, 1989



... Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells,
and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time.

But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past eight years;
the resurgence of national pride that I called "the new patriotism."
This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much,
and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want.
And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children
what America is
and what she represents in the long history of the world ?

Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America.
We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American,
and we absorbed almost in the air a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions.
If you didn't get these things from your family,
you got them from the neighborhood,
from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio.
Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school.
And if all else failed, you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture.
The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special.
TV was like that, too, through the mid-Sixties.
Ahead, to the Nineties

But now we're about to enter the Nineties, and some things have changed.
Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children.
And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style.

Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it.
We've got to do a better job of getting across that
America is freedom -
freedom of speech,
freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise -
and freedom is special and rare.
It's fragile;
it needs protection.

We've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important:
Why the pilgrims came here,
who Jimmy Doolittle was,
and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant.
You know, four years ago, on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter
from a young woman writing to her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach.
Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said,
we will always remember,
we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.
Well, let's help her keep her word.

If we forget what we did,
we won't know who we are.
I am warning
of an eradication of that - of the American memory
that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit.

Let's start with some basics - more attention to American history and a greater emphasis of civic ritual.
And let me offer lesson No. 1 about America :
All great change in America begins at the dinner table.
So tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins.
And children,
if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American -
let 'em know
and nail 'em on it.
That would be a very American thing to do.

And that's about all I have to say tonight.
Except for one thing.

The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the shining "city upon a hill."
The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important, because he was an early Pilgrim - an early "Freedom Man."
He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat,
and, like the other pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life,
but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it.
But in my mind, it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans,
wind swept, God blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace

- a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity,
and if there had to be city walls,
the walls had doors,
and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.

That's how I saw it, and see it still.
How Stands the City ?

And how stands the city on this winter night ?
More prosperous, more secure and happier than it was eight years ago.
But more than that:
after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge,
and her glow has held steady no matter what storm.

And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom,
for all the Pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We've done our part.
And as I "walk off into the city streets,"
a final word to the men and women of the Reagan Revolution
- the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back:

My friends, we did it.
We weren't just marking time,
we made a difference.
We made the city stronger -
we made the city freer -
and we left her in good hands.

All in all, not bad.
Not bad at all.

And so, goodbye.

God bless you.
And God bless the United States of America.

Now THAT was a better ... MUCH BETTER .... President !

[Yosemitest]

All you have to do is CLICK ON THE LINKS I PROVIDED !

But, like most TRUMPSTERS,

you're too damn lazy to do even THAT little bit of research !

[BlueDragon]

You make loose assertions -- then expect people to jump through hoops you put before them in order to ascertain what it could be you are talking about -- what more exactly are "lies" as you have alleged (and ones that would matter all that much in the bigger scheme of things?) then call other people lazy for not going to web pages in order to ferret out & establish veracity of argument for you? You could have cut crucial portions out and posted it here (while supplying link to sources) instead of simply posting links expecting people to 'jump' at your command.

If you are trying to establish that Trump "is a liar" then that's easy as pie -- if you believe what is written in the bible.

All men are. Trump is a man. See how simple that was? I didn't even need to supply any links. lol

I would ask ---what "lie" has Trump allegedly told that has your knickers in such a twist, but would rather not be subjected to your posting style -- unless you cared to supply simple & direct answer.

For my own take on things...other than myself not taking Trump serious enough beginning in 2015 and expecting him to win...what was posted in comment #26 I'm in much agreement with -- the parts where he's tough and knows how to win --to-- enemies attacking him coming to regret it. Stuff keeps blowing up in their faces ---and I'm Lovin' It like a lifetime's supply of Big Macs for myself and anyone I cared to bring along. ;^))

My father passed away back in 2013. It's been coming back to me now, that in 2010 or so he told me that he thought Trump would win election to Presidency of the U.S. My father could be quite prescient. I too have the gift, but for my own it includes some amount of real & actual prophetic insight coming from the Lord. Even so, and my father stressing to me under context of myself having this type of gifting -- he made sure he told me that he was sure Trump would be President, and asked me what I thought. My own reaction was about what was posted in the comment I linked to -- that there were things that rubbed the wrong way, but executive experience of what it was like to deal with deceitful persons -- Trump understanding how "deceit" works could work for the nation's benefit.

For how long have Republicans had to be the adults in the room and play the straight & honest -- under conditions of being relentlessly characterized being the opposite -- while Democrats could engage in all kinds of dishonest, cunningly deceitful political crap, about half of them being childish about the whole thing too, to the detriment of the nation while they postured to be doing good for the 'oppressed'?

I think Trump sees through that shinola about as much as the rest of us here do, in general. And the Lefties made a mistake. They pissed the man off. Obama insulted him time and again, when Trump was willing to play along and keep supplying them the graft. Obama didn't get it (much in the way of graft) and didn't "get it" in understanding how the world of real men actually worked. He could insult Trump, but then he'd have to offer some amount of acceptance immediately following -- a "it's ok I was only joking -- we like you, you're one of "us"" kind of thing. Obama never did that last. No, Obama had to play the bitch that he (Obama) is.

The deranged Left may hate Trump --the man. BUT -- they forced the man to the table -- they helped make him, and make it happen through their constant demonization of ALL Republicans, the Tea Party, the military, even the nation ITSELF. Specially that last...

They may not be able to accept Trump as their President, but he IS their monster. bwaahaHAHAAAHHAH

Squonk

[Yosemitest]

The LIES that offended me the most that Trump told and directed, go all the way back to his law2 suit for the old woman's property, just to build another unneeded hotel and casino. Then Trumps's LIES about Ted Cruz and his extended family, and his attacks on Carson, top name a few, showed me that Trump doesn't care about the truth.
He only cares about "Winning",
and ... IF the Constitution gets in the way, ... he'll ignore it.

Do you really want me go and bring back all those articles from his campaign and before his campaign to prove it ?

"They may not be able to accept Trump as their President, but he IS their monster.
bwaahaHAHAAAHHAH"/

He's the monster that the TRUMPSTERS wanted.
But not me ...

[samtheman]

Gee, I was so surprised when Republicans rejected the ideas of the National Review and nominated Trump. Especially after that big anti-Trimp Special Edition that pictured so many important NeverTrumpers on the cover.

I was really so surprised when that happened.

The National Review. What a long down-hill trip it’s been.

[BlueDragon]

I'd rather take it easy...but at this point I'll take what I can get.

If there's serious Constitutional violation on Trump's own part -- he'd likely be toast.

For eight years this nation suffered under spirit of ignoring the Constitution and laws whenever those inconvenient, coming from Zippy the I Won and his peeps.

If the Hildabeast been allowed entry to the White House ---it would be far worse than even the Zippy -- who's on like -- permanent vacation nowadays.

Hope he chokes on a hotdog or chicken bone get sideways.

[Yosemitest]

What so-called "Justice" is going to toast Trump ?
Trump hasn't removed the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF's DEEP STATE OUT OF the Department of Justice, yet.
They LIKE taking PRIVATE PROPERTY to GIVE IT TO someone else FOR PROFIT, instead of for building roads or for public facilities.

But here's you a link to the past about Trump.

Trump: Hey, Conservatives, Eminent Domain Is “Wonderful”



Trump I think eminent domain is wonderful ( 3:14 )

The Grasping Hand: "Kelo v. City of New London" and the Limits of Eminent Domain

[Freedom56v2]

Oh I love Reagan. He came to my college stumping a few years before he ran, and I had the privilege of seeing him as President in person at World’s Fair in Knoxville TN—Reagan was an amazing man, and he loved this country.

Yes, we don’t have to go very far back into History to see better. However, it is not 1980, and Reagan is not here. He was not running in 2017. So we had to choose from the candidates who chose to RUN, and Trump is closest to Reagan and the best of that bunch.

So, again, I say: It doesn’t get any better.

I tell my spouse, try to enjoy each day and find something for which to be grateful for...because we may very well look back on theses days, trying as they have been for the past decade, as the “Good Old Days.” No man knows what the future holds.

Again, Trump is not perfect and there are things he has done/didn’t do that I don’t like. However, like Reagan, Trump loves this country—and he has made personal sacrifice to save it IMHO. Trump is the closest to Reagan of all the Presidents we have had in the White House since Reagan (and with all due respect, Reagan was not perfect either...even he did a few things that many of us now regret such as amnesty).

[Yosemitest]

"... and Reagan is not here. He was not running in 2017.
So we had to choose from the candidates who chose to RUN,
and Trump is closest to Reagan and the best of that bunch."

WRONG !
VERY WRONG ! You and I will NEVER AGREE ON THAT ... POMPUS Hotel/Casino Runner.

TED CRUZ was the CORRECT CHOICE for THIS TIME and THESE TROUBLES !

But that's not what our focus should be on this moment.
Ted Cruz will be called upon again, and his time in the White House is COMING !

[Lower55]

You think Ted Cruz will somehow morph into a Natural Born Citizen?

[Just mythoughts]

Ted ‘Canadian’ born Cruz is NOT eligible to hold the office of president. Tooo bad you willingly toss out your ‘Constitutional’ right to the ‘natural born’ requirement to hold the office of president... I will call you Esau, as you seem not to care one whit about a birthright, that NO judge or act of Congress can give or take. I will never vote for Ted Cruz to hold the office of president. And I despise the fact that he advertised himself as following the ‘original intent’ of our Constitution.

[Yosemitest]

Both of your are WRONG !

"An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":

... The Constitution, federal law, and the historical understanding of the Framers, as well as prior British legal traditions and law, all support this view.
In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, two former U.S. Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement (who served under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (who served under President Barack Obama) stated:

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning:
namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth
with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that,
subject to certain residency requirements on the parents,
someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Thus, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be eligible to run for president
because the Austrian native had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.

Certainly the Framers of the Constitution held this view of “natural born” citizen.
They had a deep understanding of British common law and applied its precepts, particularly as explained in Blackstone’s Commentaries, throughout the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama (1888) recognized that
“the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that
its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law,
and are to be read in the light of its history.”

Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States
if the American people make that choice.

One of those precepts of British law was
that children born to British citizens anywhere in the world,
even outside the dominions of the British Empire,
were “natural born” citizens of the Empire
who owed their allegiance to the Crown.
This historical understanding is explained in great detail by the Supreme Court in a well-known 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

The First Congress, which included many of the Framers of the Constitution, codified this view of a natural born citizen.
A mere three years after the Constitution was drafted, they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790,
which specified that the children of U.S. citizens born
“out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
The modern version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401.
It contains a list of all individuals who are considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
Paragraph (g) includes:

A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien,
and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions
for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,
at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970;
his mother, who was a U.S. citizen by birth from Delaware, was in her 30s at the time.
She met Cruz’s father, who was born in Cuba, as a student at Rice University.
These facts show that
Cruz’s family background clearly meets the standard set out in the federal statute for being a natural born citizen who did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen.;
That was also the case for Senator Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state,
and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico.

The bottom line is that Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice.
The same is true of my wife, who was born in Manila.
Her father, whose family had been in America since shortly after the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts,
was temporarily working abroad for an American company—just like Ted Cruz’s father.

My wife is not likely to run for president,
but there is no question that she—like Ted Cruz, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain—is eligible to be president
and to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

[Yosemitest]

"I will never vote for Ted Cruz to hold the office of president.
And I despise the fact
that he advertised himself as following the ‘original intent’ of our Constitution. "

That's your choice and your vote.
But don't allow emotions to SEPARATE YOU FROM FACTS !

Cruz's mother had never become a Canadian citizen.

"She was in Canada on a work permit and never became a permanent resident, let alone a citizen," said Jason Johnson, chief strategist for the Cruz campaign.

"She never registered to vote and never applied for Canadian citizenship."

In a subsequent statement to Breitbart News, Johnson added:
"Eleanor was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law.
In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970:
Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967 - - only 3 years before Senator Cruz's birth."

[Freedom56v2]

“... and Reagan is not here. He was not running in 2017.
So we had to choose from the candidates who chose to RUN,
and Trump is closest to Reagan and the best of that bunch.”

WRONG !
VERY WRONG ! You and I will NEVER AGREE ON THAT ... POMPUS Hotel/Casino Runner.

TED CRUZ was the CORRECT CHOICE for THIS TIME and THESE TROUBLES !

But that’s not what our focus should be on this moment.
Ted Cruz will be called upon again, and his time in the White House is COMING !

---

So you started out saying that nothing Trump does will last...but now I see...

you are a #NeverTrumper—I get it now...I am just surprised you are still here...This is a pro-Trump website. Most people here support Trump.

Sorry, with all due respect, Ted did not have the votes to win the primary, and he likely would have been attacked just as much as Trump if not more in the general. Ted Cruz did not have the platform to win...He was pro-immigration with H-1B visa expansion and not pushing for jobs. I was disappointed that he cozyed up with the elite in the party during the primary. It is somewhat ironic that you refer to Trump as a pompus hotel/casino runner. I think more than a few people felt that Ted Cruz was when he spoke.

Frankly, I don’t think Cruz was the correct candidate for these times—His dad said it was God’s will that Ted run...Ted and his wife prayed about it—felt God wanted them to run. Well Ted did not win, Trump did...so I don’t think he was supposed to be chosen in 2017.

Very sad that #NeverTrumpers refuse to accept that Trump won and that he is doing some good things.

Again, I get it now that you are a #NeverTrumper, but your initial question to me was name something Trump did that cannot be undone by a future Democrat...Your comment about a future democrat president changing the number of Supreme Court Justices was not realistic IMHO...and why do you think Cruz would be getting any more legislation through the RINO Congress and not be getting interference from Deep state makes no sense...If Ted Cruz is a TRUE reformer, he would get the same interference as Trump. If Trump’s Supreme appointments are diluted, Cruz’s would be as well.

Hope you will consider a change in your thinking—it will make the next 3.5 - 8 years go easier. There are some good things happening. Even Cruz ended up supporting and endorsing Trump—for the good of the country, so I don’t see how it serves anyone except globalists and Democrats to be anti Trump at this time.

[Yosemitest]

I see you bought into EVERY ONE of Trump's LIES !
And there is very little hope for you, since your perception is through your POMPUS DEAR LEADER.

z"Ted Cruz ... was pro-immigration with H-1B visa expansion and not pushing for jobs."

WRONG AGAIN, you, poor feeble-minded TRUMPSTER .
Source:

... Cruz even indicated he would back deporting those who came here illegally -- another proposal he has usually rebuffed.

"I would enforce the law," Cruz said, explaining that he would first deport criminals without proper papers.
"Federal immigration law provides that
if someone is here illegally and is apprehended,
that they should be sent back to their home country."

Cruz has recently begun stressing that he believes the number of undocumented immigrants would decrease with strict border enforcement.
...

"The only people I'm under fire from are reporters who want to throw rocks," Cruz said in Harlan.
"Once we've demonstrated that we can solve the problem, then we can have a conversation about what to do about whatever people remain illegally."

The Rubio campaign ...
"He has attempted to muddy the waters," Cruz said on the stage. "Where there was a battle over amnesty
and some chose, like Sen. Rubio to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer
and support a massive amnesty plan.
Others chose to stand with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people
and secure the border."

Let's take a close look at what TED CRUZ said at that time about his amendment to the "Gang of Eight amnesty/ citizenship bill" :

Cruz In 2013 On Providing Legal Status To Illegal Immigrants ( 2:14 )
Published on Nov 12, 2015

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 5/21/2013:
"And I'd like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue
and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system
and, in particular, about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows.
If this amendment is adopted to the current bill, the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status.
They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for LPR status as well so that they are out of the shadows,
which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as THEIR principal objective to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows.
This amendment would allow that happen, ...

"But what it would do, is it would REMOVE the pathway to citizenship, for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,
and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve,
And a second point to those advocates that are so passionately engaged,
In my view, if this committee rejects this amendment,
and I think everyone here views that it is quite likely that this committee will indeed reject this amendment,

In my view that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will FAIL in the House of Representatives.

I don't want immigration reform to fail.
I want immigration reform to pass.
And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle,
if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that SECURES THE BORDERS, that improves LEGAL immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows;
then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromised to come together.
And this amendment,
I believe, if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically."

The intent was TO EXPOSE the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" AND THE DemocRATS for their dishonesty.
THEY were trying to LEGISLATE the ILLEGAL ALIENS a PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP.

TED CRUZ was trying to amend the Bill so as TO STOP THEM,

by REMOVING the pathway to citizenship,
for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,
and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve.

TED CRUZ chose to stand with others like Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people, to secure the border.