9 Search results

For the term "2016".

Forget Waldo. Where’s Colin Powell?

The most disturbing statistic for Democrats must have been the increase (of about 2 to 4 percent) in the share of the black vote received by Trump in 2020.

General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state, is one of the most prominent African Americans in the United States.

Powell criticized Donald Trump in 2016 and voted against him. He then criticized Republicans for “putting political interests ahead of the interests of Americans,” and in 2020 voted for Joe Biden, even endorsing Biden at the Democratic National Convention. Given the closeness of the vote, Powell’s endorsement makes him not insignificantly responsible for Biden’s election.

It’s true that Biden campaigned as a moderate, but it’s also true that someone like Powell must have read about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and the likelihood that Biden and the Biden family are corrupt. 

We all make mistakes: Powell seems like someone big enough to admit he made one, unless he prefers Biden, now, to Trump, even though Trump’s policies produced the lowest unemployment for blacks ever, a policy success which might be said to be in the interest of all Americans, not just those belonging to the party that produced those results.

What is Powell thinking now? And what was he thinking all during the summer of 2020 (before the election) when American cities were burning in post-George Floyd riots choreographed by Antifa and Black Lives Matter amid the deafening silence of the Democratic Party in general and Joe Biden in particular? 

Why is this influential black man silent on “antiracism”? And the 1619 Project? And on “equity”—this administration’s watchword? And on what looks like an attempt to purge the military of “white supremacists,” i.e., people who voted for Donald Trump? 

Years ago, the civil rights movement was hijacked by homosexuals who, cleverly and successfully, equated being homosexual with being black, and demanded all the protections and benefits blacks were entitled to under the Civil Rights Acts. 

Some will disagree that being homosexual is different from being black. But only about three and a half percent of people identify as homosexual, and that alone makes them different from blacks. If there were a homosexual gene (there isn’t), and if it could be turned off before birth, how many prospective parents would choose not to have it turned off? Exactly! Being a homosexual is not the same as being black, raising the question: where was the black community in resisting the comparison to, and the hijacking of, the civil rights movement by the homosexual community?

And where was Colin Powell?

It’s an important question because the black community is being used again, this time by anarchist Democrats (the kind who run the party and pontificate on network news programs) who seek to destroy American traditions—and, likely, America itself, along with them. That’s what critical race theory, the 1619 Project, and “equity” are all about. 

The Biden victory—assuming (but not asserting) that it wasn’t stolen—was a close call. The most disturbing statistic for Democrats must have been the increase (of about 2 to 4 percent) in the share of the black vote received by Trump in 2020. That was a call to action for Democrats, and the action we have seen and are seeing is an attempt to convince blacks that Republicans are racists. Hence the absurd claim that Georgia’s new voting laws are irredeemably racist, even though they are now more “liberal” than those in Biden’s home state of Delaware. Even so, such sensible voting laws are described by Democrats as the greatest threat to the country since the Civil War. 

And according to Jack Posobiec at Human Events, the Department of Justice is now claiming that inner-city violence is caused by white supremacist ideology, racism, and police. These people are trying to start a race war in order to preserve their power, as they are trying to preserve their power by opening the border to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who will become dependent on government largess and, Democrats hope, supporters of their party. 

Meanwhile, the military seems to be going woke. Earlier this year, the administration issued an “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance,” which mentions such “military objectives” as combating climate change and racial injustice. The military has also been launching diversity, inclusion, and equity initiatives. What that has to do with beating the Chinese is unclear. 

Two Republican members of Congress, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), have launched a new initiative to eliminate “woke” training programs in the U.S. military, and both have places on their websites where military personnel can report, anonymously, examples of woke indoctrination in the armed services.

Now the military is considering requiring soldiers to be vaccinated, although young soldiers have about as much risk of dying from the Wuhan virus as from overdosing on brownies. Why isn’t Colin Powell protecting soldiers who don’t want to take the risk of vaccination for no health gain? 

Powell has said, “And right now I’m just watching my country and not concerned with parties.” Right. And right now (and last summer too?) he’s just watching the flames, and not concerned with who’s throwing the gasoline and who’s trying to put out the fires? Leadership, anyone? Anyone? 

Powell may have no obligation—or may have had no obligation—to wade into any of these issues, but he has waded into them by opposing Trump and supporting Biden. If he is opposed to critical race theory, and the 1619 Project, and the “equity” project, and a woke military, and rampant illegal immigration (the five horsemen of the Democratic Party’s apocalypse) he should say so. His silence on the issues will be deemed consent to their goals. In that case, he likely will be, and should be, left behind by all of us, and especially by the black community, which less and less often shares the goals of the Democratic Party, so busily now returning to the racism of its past. 

Where is Colin Powell when his country needs him? 


July 27, 2021
American Greatness

Trump in 2024?

A recent poll found that 56 percent of Republicans would support Trump in 2024. They like Trump, and there is much to like: his administration was exceptionally effective — unless you’re a woke, racial-equity, New York Times-loving, neo-fascist … Democrat. But will that support survive four years of a Biden–Harris administration bent on undoing everything Donald Trump accomplished?

Under Trump, America became great again: the middle class went back to work, with women and black unemployment figures reaching record lows; Trump appointed more than two hundred constitutionalists to the federal judiciary; our enemies, primarily China, took an economic hit; NATO members started paying their dues; major agreements were signed in the Middle East; the US got out of the silly Paris Accords. And the list goes on for pages. Even on Google.

Many who like what Trump did objected, and still object, to his style. They seem not to realize that without that style he never would have been elected. The accepted wisdom in 2016, that anyone could beat Hillary Clinton, matured (in those people whose thinking was still capable of maturing) into the realization that only Trump could have beaten her. Partly, and perhaps primarily, he beat her because he did what no other candidate had ever done — he smote the media and trampled them under his feet. Yes, Trump appealed to the forgotten middle class, but it’s not clear that that appeal would ever have gotten through to his supporters without his public and signature disdain of the pointy-headed media gurus and apparatchiki.

Nor is it clear that any Republican can ever win again without the same constant smiting and trampling — activities requiring a combination of courage and skill not traditionally found in Republican officeholders.

So, yes, there was, and is, much to like in the iconoclastic Donald Trump. But there was, and is, a disconcerting stubbornness in Trump: a stubbornness that led to missed opportunities, opportunities that may not come this way again for a generation. Disrupters like Trump are rare: which means the missed chances to disrupt (and then accomplish) become understood as signal failures. And in 2024 those failures, along with his age, may well disqualify Trump, leaving the Republican Party with — who?

Did Trump have a single strategic failure that outweighed the rest? Yes. He never understood the importance of personnel. His failure had two parts: not hiring the people who could have helped him achieve (more of) the successes on offer; and not draining the swamp — cleaning out the civil service when he had the chance.

If you let the fox stay in the coop, it will eat the chickens when you leave, as we are now seeing. Where is the John Durham report on the legendary FBI misdeeds? Where is the prosecution of the Hunter Biden laptop case? Why is the FBI talking incessantly about a threat to national security coming from the right? Who will prosecute James Comey for misleading the FISA court? This column recommended in November that Trump fire the top one hundred people at all the agencies. At the FBI it should have been two hundred.

By the time of the 2016 election, the Heritage Foundation had prepared a list of a thousand or so people who were competent, ready and willing to join the Trump administration at all levels. Former Heritage Foundation president Edwin Feulner was even on a transition team, suggesting he had access to the Trump organization, and had that access because someone inside appreciated his extraordinary talents: Feulner is a first-class manager and a scholar as well (he has a PhD in political science from the University of Edinburgh).

Also waiting in the wings, not to go into the administration but to advise on personnel matters, was Donald Devine, head of the Office of Personnel Management under President Reagan, known affectionately by his friends as Reagan’s Terrible Swift Sword. (The civil service undoubtedly had a different name for him.) Devine’s book, Reagan’s Terrible Swift Sword, was a manual, waiting to be read, on how to run the US government.

Did anyone in the Trump administration read Devine’s book? Whatever happened to the Heritage Foundation’s list of a thousand people? Who knows? One rumor was that Reince Priebus (dismissed after only six months as Trump’s White House Chief of Staff) and former New Jersey governor Chris (“bridgegate”) Christie deep-sixed it. Another was that Trump’s son-in-law, New York liberal Jared Kushner, disposed of it. We don’t know, but it doesn’t matter: The buck stops with Donald Trump.

Trump’s skills were well publicized in 2016: his renovation of the Wollman skating rink in New York City is legendary. But his skills were not those of the head of a Fortune 500 company. He may have had a fortune of $3 billion, but he inherited most or all of it. There’s nothing wrong with that — unless you’re a woke, racial-equity, New York Times-loving, neo-fascist … Democrat. But inheriting a fortune doesn’t require quite the same skills as making one.

Trump was essentially a small-business man, a family businessman, not a corporate titan with a critical board of directors second guessing every decision. He was not a titan at all, not of any kind. He certainly has skills: only a fool, or a … Democrat, would deny that. But one skill Trump did not have, probably because the business he ran didn’t require it, was understanding the importance of personnel. At least in government, people are policy, because the president can’t make all the policy himself. Trump’s lack of understanding that point makes his successes, hundreds of them, all the more remarkable.

But it also, as we have already seen, makes his many successes less permanent. And that means that the 56 percent of Republicans who say they would support him today may feel differently in 2024.

Still, if it’s true that you can’t beat somebody with nobody, Trump has the edge, now, and is likely to keep it unless somebody comes along who is willing to engage in political battle the way he does.


February 24, 2021
The Daily Caller