Trump Promises 'Great Management' - We Need Limited Government

National Review ^ | January 23, 2016 | Yuval Levin

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Donald Trump is no conservative. That's not a crime, it's just a reason to vote against him. Many fine people are not conservatives. But the reason Trump's candidacy should worry the Right runs much deeper than that: He poses a direct challenge to conservatism, because he embodies the empty promise of managerial leadership outside of politics.

Trump's diagnoses of our key problems - first and foremost, that America's elites are weak and unwilling to put the interests of Americans first - have gained him a hearing from many on the right. But when he gestures toward prescriptions, Trump reveals that even his diagnoses are not as sound as they might seem.

Conservatives incline to take the weakness of our elite institutions as an argument for recovering constitutional principles - and so for limiting the power of those institutions, reversing their centralization of authority, and recovering a vision of American life in which the chief purpose of the federal government is protective and not managerial.

Trump, on the contrary, offers himself as the alternative to our weak and foolish leaders, the guarantee of American superiority, and the cure for all that ails our society; and when pressed about how he will succeed in these ways, his answer pretty much amounts to: "great management."

The appeal of Trump's diagnoses should be instructive to conservatives. But the shallow narcissism of his prescriptions is a warning. American conservatism is an inherently skeptical political outlook. It assumes that no one can be fully trusted with public power and that self-government in a free society demands that we reject the siren song of politics-as-management.

A shortage of such skepticism is how we ended up with the problems Trump so bluntly laments. Repeating that mistake is no way to solve these problems. To address them, we need to begin by rejecting what Trump stands for, as much as what he stands against.

[VitacoreVision]

:-p

National Review: Publisher ‘Broken Hearted’ Over Subscription Cancellations
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3387393/posts

[RaceBannon]

DONALD TRUMP, AT THE SHOT SHOW, IS SUPPORTING GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF LANDS AGAINST THE STATES!!
its a good thing the GOP is backing this conservative!!!
https://soundcloud.com/jacki-daily/federal-seizure-of-private-property

http://twitchy.com/2016/01/22/donald-trump-at-the-shotshow-dont-give-federal-lands-to-the-states-to-manage/
.
Here is a show that explains how the Bureau of Land Management is abusing their powers over land, something TRUMP has now said he agrees with!
.
Jacki speaks with British author Rupert Darwall, international finance specialist and former Advisor to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Global Warming movement, its goals and methods. She also is joined by Rob Henneke of the Texas Public Policy Foundation to discuss the suit versus the federal government over their seizure of private property along the Red River.

[RaceBannon]

that sign only refers to his supposed stance in the last 9 months, as opposed to his lifelong stance of being pro abortion, pro government, pro-gay...

[freeandfreezing]

By contrast, Ted Cruz wants to impose a European style 16% VAT tax along with a 10% income tax. Why does he say his scheme will raise enough money to fund the government? Because it is a giant tax increase on ordinary individuals.

Sen. Cruz doesn't talk much about the business side of his tax plan, because its really a 16% sales tax on everything you buy - multiplied by each step along the way. So you pay 16% more for everything you buy for starters. And so does the farmer who is growing what you are buying, or the mechanic who is fixing your car. That's because Sen. Cruz's VAT tax applies to every transaction, not just sales at retail.

Sorry to say, but Sen. Cruz wants to bring us the same crippling taxes that are present in Europe.

[Yosemitest]

If you're backing SOCIALIST Trump for President, ponder this .

Donald Trump and Eminent Domain, August 22nd, 2015

... More, Trump has publicly defended the confiscation of private property for eminent domain, even when the use for which the property is confiscated is purely private in nature:

Trump consistently defended the use of eminent domain.
Interviewed by John Stossel on ABC News, he said:
"Cities have the right to condemn for the good of the city.
Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good."
Challenged by Stossel, he said
that eminent domain was necessary to build schools and roads.
But of course he just wanted to build a limousine parking lot.

Once again, this is Donald Trump's vision of private property rights when he was just another private citizen.
Imagine how much more damage he could do as the leader of the Federal executive branch.

Thomas Sowell called it CORRECTLY !

...Trump boasts that he can make deals, among his many other boasts.
But is a deal-maker what this country needs at this crucial time?
Is not one of the biggest criticisms of today's Congressional Republicans
that they have made all too many deals with Democrats,
betraying the principles on which they ran for office?

Bipartisan deals -- so beloved by media pundits -- have produced some of the great disasters in American history.

Contrary to the widespread view
that the Great Depression of the 1930s was caused by the stock market crash of 1929,
unemployment never reached double digits in any of the 12 months that followed the stock market crash in October, 1929.

Unemployment was 6.3 percent in June 1930 when a Democratic Congress and a Republican president made a bipartisan deal that produced the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.
Within 6 months, unemployment hit double digits --
and stayed in double digits throughout the entire decade of the 1930s.

You want deals?
There was never a more politically successful deall than that which Neville Chamberlain made in Munich in 1938.
He was hailed as a hero, not only by his own party but even by opposition parties, when he returned with a deal that Chamberlain said meant "peace for our time."
But, just one year later, the biggest, bloodiest and most ghastly war in history began.

If deal-making is your standard,
didn't Barack Obama just make a deal with Iran --
one that may have bigger and worse consequences than Chamberlain's deal?

What kind of deals would Donald Trump make?
He has already praised the Supreme Court's decision in "Kelo v. City of New London" which said
that the government can seize private property to turn it over to another private party.

That kind of decision is good for an operator like Donald Trump.
Doubtless other decisions that he would make as president would also be good for Donald Trump,
even if for nobody else.

[hey Bean]

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Always bring links to support your comments on policy.

Please.

[major-pelham]

I agree that we need limited government but how will you achieve that losing every election? Your crowd wants to be dead martyrs rather than live winners.

But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

[Yosemitest]

Lacking substance ?
Here's an alternative.

Ted Cruz: President Can IGNORE Unconstitutional Supreme Court Decisions
Thursday, 10 December 2015, by  Selwyn Duke

Are we Americans meant to be governed by the rule of law or the rule of lawyers ?
For a long time now we've been under the latter, with the belief that
whatever five unelected judges on the Supreme Court say must go for 320 million citizens.
But presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (shown) has now challenged this opinion,
siding with no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson,
who long ago warned that such an opinion would make our Constitution a "suicide pact."

Cruz fired his shot across judicial supremacy's bow in a recent appearance on EWTN, a global Catholic network, while being interviewed by Princeton University professor Robert George (video below. Relevant portion begins at 13: 52).

CANDIDATE CONVERSATIONS 2016 WITH ROBERT GEORGE - 2015-11-25 ( 52:05 )
Asking Cruz about "judicial power," George pointed to the Supreme Court's checkered past rulings, mentioning the Dred Scott case, the 1905 case of Lochner v. New York, Roe v. Wade, and this year's Obergefell v. Hodges faux-marriage decision.
The professor then said, as presented by Crisis magazine:

Some people say that a president must always accept the court's interpretation of the Constitution
no matter how dubious that interpretation is;
that we have to treat it as the law of the land,
binding not just on the parties to the case
but on other officials of government, beginning with the president.
Abraham Lincoln though, as you know, vehemently disagreed with that idea of judicial supremacy, saying that
to treat unconstitutional court rulings as binding in all cases,
no matter what,
no matter how usurpative,
no matter how anti-constitutional,
would be for the American people - and I quote now the Great Emancipator -
"to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

George then asked if Lincoln was right and if Cruz would defy the court on Obergefell, to which the senator responded:

I agree with President Lincoln
and courts do not make law. ...
The court interprets the law, applies the law. ...
And, you know, this is an area of really striking divide in this presidential election. ...
They're [sic] quite a few Republicans who, when the gay "marriage" decision came down,
they described it as the settled law of the land.
It's final;
we must accept it,
move on and surrender.

Those are almost word for word Barack Obama's talking points
and I think they are profoundly wrong.
I think the decision was fundamentally illegitimate.
It was lawless.
It was not based on the Constitution.
I agree very much with Justice Scalia, who wrote a powerful dissent saying, this decision is a fundamental threat to our democracy. ...
And indeed, Justice Scalia, in the penultimate paragraph of his dissent
, predicts, harkening back to President Lincoln defying Dred Scott,
that state and local officials will REFUSE TO OBEY this LAWLESS decision.
It is remarkable to see a Supreme Court justice saying that would be the consequence of this.

In point of fact, Justice Scalia issued a stern warning to the Court in his Obergefell dissent, quoting Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 and writing,
"The Judiciary is the 'LEAST dangerous' of the federal branches because it has
'neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment;
and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm'
and the States,
'even for the efficacy of its judgments.'
With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them -
with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the 'reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this Court -
we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence."

The reality is that
the judiciary has no men under arms;
it cannot enforce its rulings.
Enforcement is the executive branch's role,
and the Court has no ability to coerce a president into acting on its decisions.

But isn't this just a matter of might makes right?
Doesn't the court have the legal authority of its judicial-review power to nullify or invalidate a legislative or executive action it deems unconstitutional?
Doesn't this give it the moral high ground?

The Constitution is our land's supreme law, above, of course, the Supreme Court;
this is why the Court will rule against a law citing the Constitution's authority and not merely its own.
Yet where does the notion that the Court has judicial-review power -
and that all three branches of government must be constrained by its judgments - come from ?

It is not in the Constitution but was declared by the Court on, in essence, its own authority - in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.

So the Court gave the Court its oligarchic powers.
And "oligarchic" is not too strong a word, nor a new characterization.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote two centuries ago,
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed,
and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
He further said that if the judicial-supremacy thesis is sound,
"then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se" - a suicide pact.
For judicial supremacy gives to one branch alone, continued Jefferson,
"the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others,
and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. ...
The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."

And the twisting continues apace as our Republic twists in the wind
and we are governed by the ruler and not the rule.

Justice Scalia made mention of this in his Obergefell dissent as well, writing,
"It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.
It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me.
Today's [marriage] decree says that
my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

One of the basic ideas behind our American government is "balance of power," both between the feds and the states and among the three governmental branches.
Judicial supremacy makes a mockery of this,
confusing the Supreme Court with the Supreme Being
and giving one branch -
whose prominent members aren't even elected by the people
and cannot be recalled by them -
complete TRUMP POWER OVER the other two.
To consider it legitimate
is to believe
our Founders FOUGHT ONE TYRANT living overseas
IN THE NAME OF ESTABLISHING A TRIBUNAL OF NINE TYRANTS on our own soil.

But they didn't, which is WHY judicial supremacy was NOT written INTO the Constitution.
To accept it is to yield to circular reasoning:
"The courts have the ultimate say in the meaning of law.
And how do I know?
The COURTS have told me so."

" ... THAT IS FIVE UNELECTED JUDGES DECLARING THEMSELVES AS 'THE RULERS' OVER 320 MILLION AMERICANS ... "
SO ... you can now SEE that

TED CUZ does NOT support "EMINENT DOMAIN" FOR PRIVATE USE !

That video from 13 minutes 50 seconds until 23 minutes 40 seconds REALLY IS WORTH YOUR TIME.
The whole video is worth your time.

Sen. Cruz: The Real Story of What Is Happening in Washington ( 59:47 )
Published on Sep 28, 2015

It really IS worth your time.

[Caipirabob]

Trump nails the problem with politicians - no true management ability. It’s one thing orate but another thing to lead. Those politicians with military background were far better equipped but of late their kind is waning. Give me a visionary executive who has substantial evidence he can perform and deliver. Not a mewling politician who’s record consists of hot air.

[RFEngineer]

“Conservatives incline to take the weakness of our elite institutions as an argument for recovering constitutional principles - and so for limiting the power of those institutions, reversing their centralization of authority, and recovering a vision of American life in which the chief purpose of the federal government is protective and not managerial.

Trump, on the contrary, offers himself as the alternative to our weak and foolish leaders, the guarantee of American superiority, and the cure for all that ails our society; and when pressed about how he will succeed in these ways, his answer pretty much amounts to: “great management.””

If this is the standard the NR wishes to use, then we haven’t had an effective conservative movement for decades.

“Conservative” is a term that no longer means what the author seems to think it means, when it comes to sorting out politicians.

When was the last time we had a budget actually go down, from year to year? When has the body of law ever been reduced, in favor of the personal liberty of the citizenry.

This article is more of an indictment of the entire GOP rather than a expose’ of Trump.

Trump is not a conservative. I accept that. What the rest of the GOP and the GOP field hasn’t grasped is that neither are they - if the definition is as the author posits.

What the author also fails to realize is that “management” in the private sector doesn’t mean “status quo”. The author, whom I have never heard of, obviously has spent his entire life in government or a pilot fish attached directly to those in government.

If Trump is elected, every American will come to realize that it is the GOP and the Democrats that are the enemy to this country. Not Trump.

Lindsay Graham, for instance, put himself up as a shining example of “experience” and “policy” In reality, he is one of the many that has essentially destroyed this country. He (nor any of his ilk) will not be useful in any way as a contributor to fixing what is truly wrong with this country.

He,and people like him are the enemy. They should be shown no mercy, politically speaking. We should keep Guantanamo open as a place to put our corrupt politicians as traitors if we ever get the opportunity to clean up the corrupt crony government.

[Vic S]

Did you hear Scott Walker is getting back in the race? I didn’t think so.

[RFEngineer]

Another thing. This author seems to claim that “Great Management” is unattainable. He makes the case for the astounding “Lack of Management” that is the hallmark of Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judiciary today.

[Enlightened1]

This must be you first election Cincinatus Wife? Do you really believe an Establishment Pig Politician that says he or she is going to “cut” something?

If you believe that, then I have beach front property in Kansas to sell you. Please do not tell me you are THAT gullible.

[House Atreides]

Going with Trump is the equivalent of a calling in an airstrike on your own position when being overrun by the enemy. You have no other choice.
********************************************************************************
Yes, let’s have Trump (PEACE BE UPON HIM) DESTROY AMERICA. That will show ‘em!

[X-spurt]

Is that really all you have to post non-stop?

As Mark Levin said, 10% Posters are TrumPETs and post 90% of pro-Trump and hateful Cruz stuff. Is very remindful of the actions of pro ronpaul pimping last election.

Some faked up “political lean” diagram and Trump shaking Reagan’s hand. There are a lot more pics of trump shaking the hands of far left liberals and crooks.

No one argues that Trump has not met and done business with many people and high profile politicians.

In reference to the oft pulled thread touting Trump’s paying off a mortgage of someone that stopped to help. No one is arguing that on occasion Trump has been generous. That does not offset his more selfish endeavors, nor does it mean he would govern conservatively. In fact it could indicate he would be very generous to some that have helped him, which we do not need more of if America is to be saved.

[Leto]

You and God are the only ones who can save you. The Constitution provides freedom that allow God and You to give you the best chance. Looking to an outside Hero/Strong Man is a fools errand and has been disastrous throughout history.

[FourPeas]

Limited government is what we need. Period. Better executive orders and better deals won’t cut it.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

[freeandfreezing]

That's easy, Sen. Cruz's own website:

Ted Cruz 2016

But I presume you knew that already - haven't you visited the web sites of the various candidates?