Posted on 03/31/2011 5:29:25 AM PDT by scottfactor
As I recently wrote, the 2012 Republican presidential field is looking pretty bleak. After the amazing birth and rise of the Tea Party movement and America’s overall repudiation of big-government Washington, it is very disheartening to see that the same old candidates are looking like they will be offered up: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. I can’t stand the thought of any of those men getting the Republican presidential nomination. Do any of them suppose we’re all stupid enough to buy those faux conservatives? Perhaps they do.
In a better world, we would be able to nominate a true conservative like Alan Keyes, Herman Cain or Allen West. How I dream of such a nominee! But, I would bet the big-government establishment would never willingly allow a true patriot like Mr. Keyes, Mr. Cain or Col. West on the Republican ticket.
There is another possible contender for the Republican nomination: Donald Trump. Now, before I get into this, I want to say that I like Donald Trump, even though, of course, I have never met him, have never looked him in his eyes. I like his presence, his force. I like the way he speaks with firmness. He is certainly a strong, male leader, which is what I want in the White House. But…
In looking at Mr. Trump’s positions on major issues, according to his January 1st, 2000 book, The America We Deserve, and according to his stated positions in his speech at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a question comes to mind: What do you get when you cross a liberal with a conservative? The answer, though not a joke, is a strange, contradictory creature, and it appears Donald Trump is a fine example of one.
In the headline, I called him Teflon Donald. Why? Because, it appears that he does not stick to his political positions. In his CPAC speech, he sounded like a conservative. He claimed to be pro-life, and he said if he were elected, he would work to repeal and replace Obamacare. Personally, I don’t want Obamacare replaced; I just want it repealed, period. Regardless, those two stated positions are in direct contradiction to his book from just over ten years ago.
At CPAC, Mr. Trump said, “I’m pro-life,” but in his book, he said,
“I support a woman’s right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures. When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial-birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would support a ban.”
You can’t be pro-life and support a woman’s so-called “right to choose.” Mr. Trump will be 65 this June. It’s not like he’s a young, impressionable college student whose ideas and beliefs are fluid. This is a significant positional discrepancy. So, which is it, Mr. Trump, pro-life or pro-abortion? I will give him points for at least understanding the barbaric nature of partial-birth abortion. If only he would extend that understanding to the fact that all abortions are barbaric; all abortions brutally rip apart a tiny, human baby’s body.
On socialized medicine, Mr. Trump stated at CPAC that he would fight to end Obamacare and replace it. Compare that position to what he wrote in his book,
“I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.
Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice.”
What happened to Mr. Trump’s thinking in ten short years? Which of his positions is his true position? Did he really have a change of heart, or are his words based on the desires of whatever audience he happens to be addressing?
Here’s another position that should make conservatives cringe. Again, from his book, Mr. Trump says,
“One of our next president’s most important goals must be to induce a greater tolerance for diversity. The senseless murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming-where an innocent boy was killed because of his sexual orientation- turned my stomach. We must work towards an America where these kinds of hate crimes are unthinkable.”
First of all, Mr. Trump has the facts wrong in the case of Matthew Shepard. As I have pointed out before, Shepard was not killed because he was a homosexual; he was murdered by a couple of junkies looking to rob him of his money to buy more drugs for themselves. Putting that aside, perhaps Mr. Trump has not thought through the implications of “hate crimes” legislation.
“Hate crimes” laws create a specially protected class of people, which nullifies America’s promised equal protection under the law. All crimes are hateful. Assaulting one person is no worse than assaulting another person, based on what that person is or how he behaves. “Hate crimes” penalties make punishments harsher for people who assault or murder a person who is labeled with the specially protected status, as homosexual deviants are. This is patently un-American and violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
One thing Mr. Trump is doing that is seriously firing up the conservative base is that he is going after Obama’s lack of proof of eligibility to hold the office of president. This is something that millions of Americans are desperate to see someone in a leadership position address, and Mr. Trump appears to be willing to rise to the occasion of doing so. As WorldNetDaily’s Joe Kovacs reports,
“Billionaire developer and possible Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is now suggesting Barack Obama's presidency could be ‘illegal’ if legitimate proof is not provided demonstrating the commander in chief is indeed a ‘natural born citizen’ of the U.S.”
Illegal, indeed! Many of us have been saying this since before the election. Without proof of his eligibility, the legality of Obama’s presidency is certainly in question. Mr. Kovac’s report continues,
“Trump defended so-called ‘birthers,’ explaining, ‘They just want to see the president was born in this country.’
…Trump also wondered why no doctors or nurses have come forward to announce their presence at Obama's birth.
‘Here's the president of the United States, and no doctor, no nurse, nobody's come forward saying, 'I delivered that beautiful baby.'
‘…He spent millions of dollars trying to get away from this issue. Millions of dollars in legal fees trying to get away from this issue. I brought it up just routinely. All of a sudden a lot of facts are emerging, and I'm starting to wonder myself whether he was born in this country,’ Trump said on ‘Fox & Friends.’"
It’s not even necessarily that we want to know if Obama was born in the United States, because even if he was born here, if his father is who he claims, then his father was a foreign national, which would nullify Obama’s being a natural born American citizen, since both of his parents were not Americans.
Mr. Trump is seeing that he’s getting major support from the American people as he pursues the Obama eligibility issue. Here is finally someone besides the WorldNetDaily staff who is not afraid of those on the screeching Left who viciously attack anyone who questions Obama’s eligibility to be president. If Mr. Trump can stand firm and not give in to peer pressure on this issue, he will continue to have the support of many conservatives.
Mr. Trump does hold a number of conservative positions, but some of them are tempered with liberalism. For instance, although he is against a missile defense shield, he supports spending more money on our military. He is against gun control, for the most part. He supports controlling our borders and making even legal immigration difficult. He supports Israel. He supports a complete repeal of the inheritance tax, but he does not support a flat tax. He supports making the very wealthy pay an extra tax not imposed on lower-income people. He is against the “dumbing-down” of students in our public education system. He supports school choice to create competition for the government-run public school system.
Overall, it looks at if Mr. Trump is a lukewarm conservative with a fairly iffy stance on some of the issues that are important to conservatives. One curious thing about him is that he has given a large amount of money to political campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans, although Democrats have received more of his money than Republicans. He has given money to some of the most rotten liberals in the history of our government, including Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, just to name a few.
Donald Trump would certainly be an interesting nominee, but I would not trust him to ultimately be a conservative. It seems to me he does love America, though, and that is a far cry better deal than the America-hater we currently have squatting in our White House.
As I said in the column, I do like Mr. Trump. He’s a strong leader. He’s all over the road on his views, though, and with his support for Democrats more than Republicans, who can really know?
I did note in the column that he claims to be for repealing and replacing Obamacare even though ten years ago, he said he was all for socialized medicine. I asked which of those positions is his true position. I don’t want Obamacare replaced, just repealed.
At this point, I would take him over Obama any day. I would really like to see Mr. Trump tromp Obama in the debates. That would be a good thing to see.
Sheeesh,fruit loops chill will you? Why are you so angry? Just because I don’t agree with you that’s no reason for you to take out your anger on me. As for moving along I wish you’d stop replying to ME! Ok? Now PLEASE run along and don’t bother me anymore you’re tiresome. :)
[quote]You naysayers will become relevant to me when you evolve from whining to constructive approaches for dealing with the total Marxist threat.[/quote]
And your plan is?
What is your strange point? Who is “running around... like Chicken Little...”? Who is “whining”?
If you’re talking about this column, it is simply an elementary analysis of Donald Trump’s political positions—no whining or Chicken Little.
Confront, confront and confront the Marxists and their useful idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.