Getting Rid of Trump

Of course, the mainstream media/propaganda arm of the Democratic Party wants Trump out of office one way or the other. If they don't succeed with impeachment and conviction, then by "undoing the great mistake of 2016." So said the LA Times in their October 20, 2109 editorial. Their editorial sets out some generalities that they believe justify voting Trump out of office next November. I do wonder who their target audience might be. After all, California voted overwhelmingly for Hillary (8,753,788 to Trump's 4,483,810), so not much risk of California going for Trump in 2020.

Not surprisingly, the Times is unable to see anything positive that Trump has accomplished. And the negatives that apply to Trump were never applied to Obama. The Times attack on Trump continued in all their editorials this past week. In their October 22 editorial, "The train-wreck presidency," the Times sets out a number of Trump's alleged failures. For example, they tell us that Trump has "insulted and alienated the nation's friends and allies." Also, they say that Trump "has cozied up to right-wing nationalist dictators and autocrats."

Presumably, Obama did not insult allies or cozy up to dictators. In 2009 Obama gave his speech to the Muslim world, from Cairo, Egypt. He invited the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to attend, a direct slap in the face to our ally Egypt. Egyptian President Mubarak then refused to attend the speech. Obama drew his red line in Syria, advising them of severe consequences if they should again use chemical weapons. They did, and Obama did nothing against the dictator in Syria, undermining US credibility in the world.

When it came to Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East and perhaps in the entire world, Obama was downright hostile. Recall that when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House, Obama rudely kept Netanyahu waiting while he went upstairs to eat dinner with Michelle and his kids. One of Obama's senior aide's referred to Netanyahu as a "chickenshit." In December, 2016, Obama's last full month in office, he had his UN ambassador abstain from a completely anti-Israel Security Council resolution, turning over all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to the terrorist Palestinians. East Jerusalem contains the Old City, with Judaism's holiest sites - the Temple Mount and the Western Wall (Kotel). So much for respecting allies.

Recall the 2009 Iranian Green Revolution, when people took to the streets to contest what they saw as a rigged election with Ahmadinejad the declared victor. Obama was slow to speak out, and never really supported the protesters. Later, we learned that Obama was already reaching out to the Ayatollahs, which ultimately resulted in the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. Let's not forget the $150 billion in cash sent to the Iranians as part of that deal, cash that allowed them to extend their influence across the Middle East.

Then we have Obama cozying up to one of the world's worst dictators, Russian Premier Vladimir Putin. In the infamous conversation, caught on an open mic, with nominal Russian President Medvedev, Obama said to let Vladimir know that he would have more flexibility after his assumed reelection in 2012. One of Russia's biggest concerns was with a planned missile defense system by the US, which Obama made clear was one issue on which he'd have more flexibility. Obama had flexibility on the security of the US and its allies.

Following the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris on the satirical paper Charlie Hebdo, and on the kosher market, where terrorists killed 16 people and injured 19, world leaders came together to march with millions of French citizens. It was a march in support of freedom, free speech and against anti-Semitism and terrorism. Marching alongside French President Hollande was a total of over 40 world leaders, including British PM David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Israeli PM Netanyahu. Obama had no interest. Obama had no interest in marching against Islamic terrorism.

The Times editorial discussed other alleged failings of Trump. They say Trump "flirted with repudiating NATO." Yet, Trump's cajoling of our NATO allies resulted in those countries contributing billions of dollars more towards NATO, resulting in the strengthening of that alliance. Many of the paper's complaints centered around Trump's language and demeanor. On that issue, many people on both sides might agree. But Republicans see his demeanor as a secondary issue, with policies being primary. I stand with that group who may not always agree with Trump's demeanor and language, but often agree with his policies. And I would almost never agree with the left-wing policies of the Democratic Party.