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 Personally, I don’t want Obamacare replaced; I just want it repealed, period.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.
Sounds like a fetish.
I am not a Trump fan, but I am also tried of watching the media and the Democrats, and RINO’s pick my candidate.
I want a primary where every state votes the same day and the people of this country instead of one state or caucus doing the picking. That isn’t going to happen, but this year I am determined to vote for who I like.
Every year I gat to try to pick the best of two evils. It aint happening this year.
I will vote for whom I like if I have to write the name in.
I will not be loyal to a party that is not loyal to me .
Seems like you are playing indentity politics.
Alan Keyes is a certified fruit loop on the fringe of American politics. Who happens to be black.
Herman Cain and Allen West are true mainstream conservative leaders (who also happen to be black).
By lumping the three together, you are diminishing West and Cain.
A fetish?! Good grief!
Those happen to be a few of the only guys out there who I consider to be the real deal, and there’s nothing “perverse” about it.
Sounds like Ross Perot on crack.
Scott is not playing “identity” politics. He didn’t write the column. I did.
Alan Keyes is in no way a “fruit loop.” I base my points on Mr. Keyes’ words. His words are true.
And, I stand by my words.
...loved your post. Very informative and a great read for all of us on FR.
Thanks!
Thank you. I appreciate that!
We already elected this guy. His name was George W. Bush.
Time to hit the NEXT button.
That said, if the decision were down to The One or The Donald (which I pray it won't be), I'd choose The Donald. For all of his faults, he at least loves the USA.
Obama will be tough to beat in 2012. We cannot take victory for granted, otherwise 2012 will be 1996 and not 1980.
Donald Trump does possess some attrinutes that could work well for him. For one, he’s already a household name and a bit of a celebrity. This is important in our sound-bite and celebrity worshipping culture.
More importantly, Donald Trump presents an image of toughness and decisiveness. This isn’t just an act for a TV show, it’s how he became who he is. Those qualities will stand in sharp contrast to Obama’s record of weakness and indecision.
Who certified Alan Keyes as a “fruit loop”? On what factual basis was this certification done? What are the credentials of the person or people who made this determination?
Why is it that you only want a male leader?
Because men are meant to be, designed to be, the leaders.
Yes, I always "hear it" from people on that one, because I've written it before (in one of my columns about Michele Bachmann). That's just what I believe, and it's also based on the words of the Bible.
By Christine Phillip BET.com BET.comupdated 8/18/2004 6:47:07 PM ET 2004-08-18T22:47:07
Share Print Font: +-Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate who once referred to reparations as “an insult to our slave ancestors,” is now calling for a plan that would exempt the descendants of slaves from income taxes for at least a generation.
Tax exemption would give Blacks "a competitive edge in the labor market," because they would be cheaper to hire than federal tax-paying employee" and allow Blacks to be compensated "for all those years when your labor was being exploited," said Keyes, who is challenging Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama for the U.S. Senate seat.
Keyes' different turn
The ancestors of slaves would be precluded from paying federal taxes for a generation or two. The exemption would apply only to federal taxes, as opposed to state taxes, since slavery "was an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment,” Keyes said. There would be no exemption from Social Security taxes, however.
I have met him, looked him in his eyes and don't like him.
He is a guy that has had all of his dad's wealth and opportunity, and the fact that he's taken advantage of it is OK with me.
I don't care how much money he's made, it's called capitalism for a reason, and I'm all for it.
He is also sleazy, amoral, crooked, union payoff guy {he'd rather bribe them than fight them}.
This recent dust up with the birth certificate is the Donald running interference for hildabitch.
I have no idea what obama doesn't want the public to see on his birth certificate or the rest of his past, but he is looking more and more like the "Manchurian Candidate", with the mooselimbs and soros as his original financial backers.
Who paid osamaobama's way to private schools, Columbia, Harvard? How many social security numbers has he had? What did his original passport list as his country?
I’ll probably be voting for Donald.
“Yes, I always “hear it” from people on that one, because I’ve written it before (in one of my columns about Michele Bachmann). That’s just what I believe, and it’s also based on the words of the Bible”.
*******************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Talking about FRUIT LOOPS................If you truly believe this, pal.
Of the three only Rep. West even holds an elective office at this point. I think he is a potential candidate for higher office at some point in the future, but not in 2012.
Americans have a long tradition of preferring VPs and Governors and the occassional General as President. People who have achieved other high office in other words.
We took a chance on a half term senator, and few will be in the mood to do it again.
The black electorate voted 95% for Obama, and votes almost as highly for other Democrats, election after election. Given this it seems strange to me, and I'm sure to millions of other White Americans, that you seem obsessed with choosing only the black conservatives, mostly people without any real political experience, as the best qualified candidates.
As another poster said: it seems like a fetish.
I would suggest that 2012 is most definately NOT the year for
There is also an obvious downside for the black underclass to having another black President right now. They are having a very hard time with Obama in there. It seems to have psychologically set off many of them, as evidenced by the huge spike in wildings, flash mobs, riots and gang acts. I believe it would be best not to further inflame their sense of entitlement in this way.
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.