THE ROAD TO 911

[Part of Constituting America’s 90 Day Study - Days that Shaped America]

For those old enough to remember, September 11, 2001, 9:03 a.m. is burned into our collective memory.  It was at that moment that United Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. 

Everyone was watching.  American Airlines Flight 11 had crashed into the North Tower seventeen minutes earlier.  For those few moments there was uncertainty whether the first crash was a tragic accident.  Then, on live television, the South Tower fire ball vividly announced to the world that America was under attack.

The nightmare continued.  As horrifying images of people trapped in the burning towers riveted the nation, news broke at 9:37 a.m. that American Flight 77 had ploughed into the Pentagon.

For the first time since the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Americans were collectively experiencing full scale carnage from a coordinated attack on their soil.

The horror continued as the twin towers collapsed, sending clouds of debris throughout lower Manhattan and igniting fires in adjoining buildings.  Questions filled the minds of government officials and every citizen:  How many more planes?  What were their targets? How many have died?  Who is doing this to us?

At 10:03 a.m., word came that United Flight 93 had crashed into a Pennsylvania field.  Speculation exploded as to what happened.  Later investigations revealed that Flight 93 passengers, alerted by cell phone calls of the earlier attacks, revolted causing the plane to crash.  Their heroism prevented this final hijacked plane from destroying the U.S. Capitol Building.

The final accounting was devastating: 2,977 killed and over 25,000 injured.  The death toll continues to climb to this day as first responders and building survivors perish from respiratory conditions caused by inhaling the chemical-laden smoke.  It was the deadliest terrorist attack in human history.

How this happened, why this happened, and what happened next compounds the tragedy.

Nineteen terrorists, most from Saudi Arabia, were part a radical Islamic terrorist organization called al-Qaeda “the Base”.  This was the name given the training camp for the radical Islamicists who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani, was the primary organizer of the attack. Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi, was the leader and financier. Their plan was based upon an earlier failed effort in the Philippines.  It was mapped out in late 1998.  Bin Laden personally recruited the team, drawn from experienced terrorists.  They insinuated themselves into the U.S., with several attending pilot training classes.  Five-man teams would board the four planes, overpower the pilots, and fly them as bombs into significant buildings. 

They banked on plane crews and passengers responding to decades of “normal” hijackings.  They would assume the plane would be commandeered, flown to a new location, demands would be made, and everyone would live.  This explains the passivity on the first three planes.  Flight 93 was different, because it was delayed in its departure, allowing time for passengers to learn about the fate of the other planes.  Last minute problems also reduced the Flight 93 hijacker team to only four.

The driving force behind the attack was Wahhabism, a highly strict, anti-Western version of Sunni Islam.  

The Saudi Royal Family owes its rise to power to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792).  He envisioned a “pure” form of Islam that purged most worldly practices (heresies), oppressed women, and endorsed violence against nonbelievers (infidels), including Muslims who differed with his sect.  This extremely conservative and violent form of Islam might have died out in the sands of central Arabia were in not for a timely alliance with a local tribal leader, Muhammad bin Saud.

The House of Saud was just another minor tribe, until the two Muhammads realized the power of merging Sunni fanaticism with armed warriors.  Wahhab’s daughter married Saud’s son, merging their two blood lines to this day.  The House of Saud and its warriors rapidly expanded throughout the Arabia Peninsul fueled by Wahhabi fanaticism.  These various conflicts always included destruction of holy sites of rival sects and tribes.  While done in the name of “purification”, the result was erasing the physical touchstones of rival cultures and governments.

In the early 20^th Century, Saudi leader, ibn Saud, expertly exploited the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and alliances with European Powers, to consolidate his permanent hold over the Arabian Peninsula.  Control of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s two holiest sites, gave the House of Saud the power to promote Wahhabism as the dominant interpretation of Sunni Islam.  This included internally contradictory components of calling for eradicating infidels while growing rich from Christian consumption of oil and pursuing lavish hedonism when not in public view.

In the mid-1970s Saudi Arabia used the flood of oil revenue to become the “McDonalds of Madrassas”.  Religious schools and new Mosques popped up throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.  This building boom had nothing to do with education and everything to do with spreading the cult of Wahhabism.  Pakistan became a major hub for turning Wahhabi madrassas graduates into dedicated terrorists.

Wahhabism may have remained a violent, dangerous, but diffused movement, except it found fertile soil in Afghanistan. 

Afghanistan was called the graveyard of empires as its rugged terrain and fierce tribal warriors thwarted potential conquerors for centuries.  In 1973, the last king of Afghanistan was deposed leading to years of instability.  In April 1978, the opposition Communist Party seized control in a bloody coup. The communist tried to brutally consolidate power, which ignited a civil war among factions supported by Pakistan, China, Islamists (known as the Mujahideen), and the Soviet Union.  Amidst the chaos, U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubbs was killed on February 14, 1979.

On December 24, 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, killing their ineffectual puppet President, and ultimately bringing over 100,000 military personnel into the country.  What followed was a vicious war between the Soviet military and various Afghan guerrilla factions.  Over 2 million Afghans died.

The Reagan Administration covertly supported the anti-Soviet Afghan insurgents, primarily aiding the secular pro-west Northern Alliance.  Arab nations supported the Mujahideen.  Bin Laden entered the insurgent caldera as a Mujahideen financier and fighter.  By 1988, the Soviets realized their occupation had failed.  They removed their troops, leaving behind another puppet government and Soviet trained military.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Afghanistan was finally free.  Unfortunately, calls for reunifying the country by reestablishing the monarchy and strengthening regional leadership went unheeded.  Attempts at recreating the pre-invasion faction ravaged parliamentary system only led to new rounds of civil war. 

In September 1994, the weak U.S. response opened the door for the Taliban, graduates from Pakistan’s Wahhabi madrassas, to launch their crusade to take control of Afghanistan.  By 1998, the Taliban controlled 90% of the country. 

Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda warriors made Taliban-controlled territory in Afghanistan their new base of operations.  In exchange, Bin Laden helped the Taliban eliminate their remaining opponents.  This was accomplished on September 9, 2001, when suicide bombers disguised as a television camera crew blew-up Ahmad Shah Massoud, the charismatic, pro-west leader of the Northern Alliance.

Two days later, Bin Laden’s plan to establish al-Qaeda as the global leader of Islamic terrorism was implemented with hijacking four planes and turning them into guided bombs.

The 9-11 attacks, along with the earlier support against the Soviets in Afghanistan, was part of Bin Laden’s goal to lure infidel governments into “long wars of attrition in Muslim countries, attracting large numbers of jihadists who would never surrender”. He believed this would lead to economic collapse of the infidels, by "bleeding" them dry.  Bin Laden outlined his strategy of "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy" in a 2004 tape released through Al Jazeera.

On September 14, amidst the World Trade Center rubble, President George W. Bush addressed those recovering bodies and extinguishing fires using a bullhorn:

“The nation stands with the good people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens”

A rescue worker yelled, “I can't hear you!”

President Bush spontaneously responded: “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

Twenty-three days later, on October 7, 2001, American and British warplanes, supplemented by cruise missiles fired from naval vessels, began destroying Taliban operations in Afghanistan.

U.S. Special forces entered Afghanistan.  Working the Northern Alliance, they defeated major Taliban units. They occupied Kabul, the Afghan Capital on November 13, 2001.

On May 2, 2011, U.S. Special Forces raided an al-Qaeda compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, killing Osama bin Laden. 

POPULISM TRIUMPHANT

[Published on Newsmax]

Senator Bernie Sanders’ rise to front runner for the Democratic Party’s nomination should be welcomed. The underlying cause of his ascendancy is very similar to Trump’s.  It represents a bipartisan rebellion against the elites and is healthy for America.

Since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal expansion of government in the 1930’s there has been an entrenched elite that runs America.  The bureaucrats in Washington, DC make common cause with crony capitalist lobbyists and pliable Members and staff in the Legislative Branch.  Together with their media allies, they have relentlessly thwarted the will of the people.  Government has expanded, waste of tax dollars has gone unchecked, and breaching our privacy is now commonplace. 

The denizens of the “Swamp” and “Deep State” have become rich and arrogant.  They have banked on the complexity and longevity of their schemes to bewilder and intimidate those unlucky enough to exist outside their circles of power. Their defense systems have been perfected to absorb and neutralize even the most assertive reformers. 

The Swamp/Deep State players depend on both Democrats and Republicans to nominate Presidents who are either already loyal to the status quo or, after winning with reformist rhetoric, revert to passivity.  This has been a reliable strategy for generations.

The Swamp/Deep State have had shocks as the grassroots can stir and surprise.  Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 was built upon a conservative movement that arose in the 1940s.  The elites had dismissed conservatives for years and viewed them like a newly discovered Amazon tribe when they took the Presidency and Senate.  The Reagan Revolution overturned the common wisdom that the Soviets would never be defeated, and that big government would forever expand.  It took 12 years of the Bush dynasty to dilute Reagan’s achievements. 

The Gingrich Revolution became another shock to the power elites.  They never saw the ground swell against the Congressional Kleptocracy that burst out of the ballot boxes in November 1994.  The Congressional breakthrough was short-lived.  By 2006, exploiting earmarks and the lobbyist revolving door stemmed the reformist tide.

While the elites celebrated their triumphs, Americans grew restive.

On February 16, 2009, the Tea Party Movement erupted to counter the political power grabs of Obamacare and the unchecked spending under the Recovery Act.  Two years later, Occupy Wall Street (OWS) took over Zuccotti Park in New York City, calling attention to “crony capitalism”.

Commentators across the political spectrum denounced both movements as “AstroTurf” – fake grass roots.  Both movements were accused of being funded and organized by nefarious forces.  Their motives were assailed.  According to the elites, the Tea Party was racist and OWS was communist.  Everyone within the political elites, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, studiously avoided linking the growing dissatisfaction with the status quo as the unifying theme of these two populist protest movements.

Populism defined Andrew Jackson’s victory in 1828.  He tapped the concerns of western settlers who were tired of Eastern elites dominating the White House.   It arose again in the1890s as farmers felt unaccountable moneyed interests were exploiting and ignoring them.  Donald Trump tapped similar sentiments as he shocked the status quo in first winning the Republican nomination against heavily favored establishment candidates and then toppling Hillary Clinton, the anointed one, in November 2016.

President Trump openly draws inspiration from Andrew Jackson.  Trump’s policies are very Jacksonian, challenging elites and boosting America first.

It is no surprise that rallying the disaffection on the right would inspire a candidate to tap the disaffection on the left.  Sanders rise scares the establishment, just like Trump.  Sanders has assailed the Democratic National Committee for aiding the elites, just like they did in 2016.  He has called out the media for unfair treatment.  His legions of supporters are filling auditoriums. His is a real movement.

Americans should look forward to a Trump-Sanders race.  There have only been a few times in our lifetime when two candidates offered stark and fundamentally different futures for our country.  It will be a clarifying moment, awarding the winner a crystal-clear mandate to boldly act.  Only Johnson-Goldwater 1964, McGovern-Nixon 1972, Carter-Reagan 1980, and Mondale-Reagan 1984 have provided such opportunities. 

Americans should rejoice that a Trump-Sanders general election campaign would be the first time since Davis-Coolidge in 1924 to shut out the elites across the political spectrum. 

2020 could be the triumph of Populism. 

ENDING THE DEEP STATE

[Published on NewsMax]

The surreal world of the Trump Impeachment Inquiry is assailing those who respect the will of the voters.  Those defying this fundamental principle of American democracy are being lauded.

It is perverse to allow opponents of voter-mandated change to remain in policy positions.

Trump’s predicament was completely avoidable.  All he had to do was be as assertive with government personnel as he was with his company’s hiring and firing.  

It is doubtful that Trump left legacy executives in place when he acquired hotels, golf courses, and casinos.  Trump brought in his own team.  They assessed the management and service team members, to align them with Trump’s corporate culture and branding.  Those who displayed loyalty and competence remained, all others were replaced.  This happened quickly.  Once the Trump logo was unfurled, Trump’s operational culture and customer service experience had to exist. 

It is, therefore, disappointing that Trump approached the Executive Branch with such hesitancy.

Like any large vessel, the federal “ship of state” has a command bridge from where the captain leads the ship.  A new President quickly realizes that, while his bridge, the Oval Office, affords a wonderful view, its steering wheel and control levers must be hooked-up to run the ship.  Control of the engine room is fundamental to moving in the intended direction. The ship’s crew must follow the captain’s decisions.  It is the same in the Executive Branch.  People equal policy.

The Executive Branch is far more complex than any ship or corporation.  The outgoing party leaves behind cadres of guerrilla fighters to frustrate, hinder, and destroy the new President’s agenda.  This preserves the old and enables defeating the new.  

Cabinet Departments and agencies each have unique cultures that shape those serving in the career service.  Depending on the party in power, some agencies will be more friendly or hostile than others.  

Careerists can be just as political as political appointees.  Their politics is about preserving power, funding, turf, prestige, and policy.  Those aligned with the previous Administration will have benefited from rapid advancement.  Those less enthusiastic, will have been relegated to dark recesses, well away from critical policy paths.

An incoming Administration uses its network of friendly Congressional offices, policy organizations, and media outlets to map out its allies and enemies within the Executive Branch.  This is what Transitions are for.

Trump was ill-served from the start.  He ignored the advice and offers of help from Ronald Reagan alumni, who ran the last fully successful Republican transition.  Instead, Trump turned to Governor Christie.  Christie turned to his friends in the Romney, Bush, and Ford circles.  They recommended that the Boston Consulting Group, the epicenter of Bush operatives, run the Trump Transition.  The rest, sadly, is history.  

It could have been so different.  

Starting in 1978, Reagan’s inner circle worked closely with the vast network of conservative groups: The Heritage Foundation, Kingston, Stanton, Library Court, Chesapeake Society, Monday Club, Conservative Caucus, American Legislative Exchange Council, Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, and the Eagle Forum.   

This conservative network placed key operatives into Reagan’s national campaign and transition.  They identified over 17,000 positions that affected Executive Branch operations.  A separate team identified the key positions in each cabinet department and major agency that had to be under Reagan’s control in the first week of his presidency.

On January 21, 1981, Reagan’s personnel team immediately removed every Carter political appointee.  They were walked out the door, identification badge taken, files sealed, and their security clearance terminated.  In one instance, a Carter political appointee at ACTION was physically prevented from signing the nearly one million dollars of leftist grants sitting on his desk.  The Carter era ended completely and instantaneously.

Over the next sixty days, Ambassadors were recalled, White House detailees were reassigned. Every management and supervisory careerist who had been hired or promoted during the previous year was reviewed, and those not truly there on their merits, were removed.

American voters soundly rejected Carter and wanted the Reagan Revolution.  They got it.

Reagan loyalists, as temporary appointees, entered every cabinet department and agency to enforce policy, review contracts, and terminate anyone or any entity that were there to promote Carter policy.  Every legal action, regulation, negotiation, and grant was stopped until assessed based upon Reagan policy.  Overwhelming numbers of fulltime Reagan loyalists rapidly implemented his revolution.

By May 1981, Reagan was in full command of the Executive Branch.  Core management teams in every department and agency moved deeper into the bureaucracy.  Wave after wave of management and personnel changes occurred, paving the way for the Reagan Era to flourish.

Thorough planning and expert implementation by solid loyalists resulted in no leaks and no sabotage. 

Reagan had a sign on his desk “It CAN be done”.  

It was.

MID TERMS MATTER

“CONSTITUTING AMERICA” SERIES ON CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY

The definition of a Midterm Election is that it is held mid-way through the term of the President. While not on the ballot, the President’s electoral mandate and actions to fulfill that mandate, are validated or challenged by voters as they elect members of the Legislative Branch.

Midterms were created as the solution to a fundamental issue in the founding of America:

What is the balance between responsive and responsible government?

The authors and advocates of the U.S. Constitution wrestled with this balance.

One the one hand, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, writing as “PUBLIUS”, asserted in their essays advocating for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, that frequent elections guaranteed Congress’ elected Members responding to the will of the people.

Federalist No. 52:

“First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured…. It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration.”

Guaranteeing responsiveness and accountability also needed to be tied to short terms in office.

FEDERALIST No. 57:

“The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.”

On the other hand, Hamilton and Madison worried that too frequent elections would create instability.

Federalist No. 62

“The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.”

Hamilton and Madison raised an issue they considered worse than instability - arbitrary and capricious public policy. They sought a structural solution, “necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.” [Federalist 63]

Hamilton and Madison’s solution was to have two separate bodies within the Legislative Branch, one of which would have longer terms of service. “The proper remedy for this defect must be an additional body in the legislative department, which, having sufficient permanency to provide for such objects as require a continued attention, and a train of measures, may be justly and effectually answerable for the attainment of those objects.’ [Federalist 63]

The Senate, having six year terms for its members, would be a defense against, “particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” [Federalist 63]

Hamilton and Madison cited the importance of deflecting transitory and ill-thought public passion throughout history. “What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.” [Federalist 63]

They concluded that not only terms of service, but the cycles of elections would create the proper balance to assure responsive and responsible democracy: “when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty.” [Federalist 63]

Their solution is embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

ARTICLE I; Section 3

1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year;

The combination of having the entire Membership of the House of Representatives face the electorate every two years, and only a third of the Senate submit to re-election every two years created Midterm Elections.

Throughout American history, Midterm Elections have reshaped Presidential agendas, ended or launched new political movements, and marked watershed moments in the civic culture of the nation.

The 1858 Midterm, prior to American Civil War, showcased the fragmentation of the Democrat Party over slavery and catapulted the four-year-old Republican Party into becoming the dominant plurality faction in both the House and Senate. Sixteen years later, Republicans lost 96 House seats and their majority in reaction to the Grant Administration scandals, and the mismanagement of Southern Reconstruction. 

The 1894 Midterms heralded the reemergence of the Republican Party as a new dynamic force that would bring William McKinley to the Presidency in 1896. The voters also blamed President Grover Cleveland for a major economic depression, leading to jobless workers marching on Washington demanding relief. The Democrats lost 116 seats in the House, the largest defeat in history. Fourteen years later, splits in the Republican Party, especially the falling out between old allies, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, triggered Republicans losing 57 seats in the House and 10 Senate seats. This fragmentation worsened, leading to Woodrow Wilson winning the Presidency in 1912 with 42 percent of the popular vote in a three-way race.

The October 1930 Midterm reflected Americans reeling from the Stock Market Crash, facing a deepening Depression, and the collapse of trust in Republicans. The Republican Party lost 49 House and 8 Senate seats. The Republicans barely retained control of Congress by only two votes in the House and one in the Senate. Their Midterm debacle set the stage for the 1932 election, when Republicans lost the White House for twenty years, and lost Congressional power for three generations. Over the next 62 years, Republicans had ten years of intermittent rule in the Senate and led only two separate Congresses in the House.

America redefined itself in the 1994 Midterm elections. President Bill Clinton had overreached on universal healthcare. There was a revitalized Republican Party, fueled by Conservative Talk radio and the visionary leadership and aggressive tactics of Newt Gingrich.

Democrats were shocked, losing 53 House and 7 Senate seats. This brought Republican rule to the House for the first time since the 1952 election, a forty-two year hiatus. Only one Republican Member had served in the previous Republican era - as a House page.

Since 1994, Republicans have dominated the Legislative Branch, even gaining 6 House and 2 Senate seats in the 2002 Midterm, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush Administration unpopularity and Congressional scandals led to voters ending Republican rule in the 2006 Midterms. President Obama’s policy overreach, Conservative Talk Radio, and the rise of digital and social media, brought Republican majorities back to the House in the 2010 Midterms and the Senate in the 2014 Midterms.

No matter the outcome of the 2018 Midterms, the wisdom of those who struck the balance between responsive and responsible government in the U.S. Constitution will once again be vindicated.

[Scot Faulkner advises corporations and governments on how to save billions of dollars by achieving dramatic and sustainable cost reductions while improving operational and service excellence. He served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. He also served on the White House Staff, and as an Executive Branch Appointee.]

TRUMP's FALTERING REVOLUTION

Also published on Newsmax.  #DEEPSWAMP  #RINOgator

President Trump made draining Washington’s Swamp the centerpiece of his Presidency.  The swamp is winning.  Its RINOgators are on the verge of destroying the Trump Presidency. 

Trump’s Executive Branch is now running on empty.  His appointment process is the slowest since Jimmy Carter in 1977.  He recently defended his depleted ranks of loyalists, “we don’t need all of the people. You know, it’s called cost saving.”  In fact, Trump not bringing in his loyalists means the Executive Branch is being run by Obama holdovers, and senior careerists, who run the government from acting positions.  They owe their last eight years of promotions and bonuses to their loyally enforcing and implementing Obama’s policies.

The swamp is exploiting Trump’s misunderstanding of “people equal policy”. 

The few political managers Trump has placed are completely isolated and outmaneuvered. Worse, most of Trump’s appointments are people who owe their loyalty to everyone but Trump.  The inner circles of the White House, and legions of political operatives in the Departments and Agencies, wish Jeb Bush was President.  Their disloyalty to Trump is manifest in leaks and their ineffectual and slow paced efforts to change anything.

Insiders explain that Trump dislikes people with government experience and that he feels Reagan and his appointees could have done more to shrink government.  If that is so, why is he fixated on bringing in Bush alumni who grew government? 

Trump declared that he would drain Washington’s swamp by not hiring lobbyists.  During the transition, countless personnel clearance forms were used supposedly to prevent lobbyists insinuating themselves. This failed.  USA Today reports that more than 100 former federal lobbyists are now working inside the Trump Administration.

Trump has been ill-served and misled from the very beginning.  During the Spring of 2016, key elements of the Reagan coalition, including Reagan Administration alumni and key think tanks, were ready, willing, and able to help Trump be successful.  They were ignored.

In June 2016, Trump realized he needed to prepare for being President.  Instead of turning to those conservatives who were openly and passionately supporting him, Trump turned to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  Where Trump conservatives would have opened the door to legions of proven change agents, Christie opened the flood gates to Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush operatives.  Where Trump loyalists would have worked for free, Christie spent millions on hiring the Boston Consulting Group to run the Transition.  The Boston Consulting Group had never run a Presidential Transition, but the Managing Partner in charge of the contract was the daughter of longtime Bush loyalist.

The Trump Transition ended-up preparing for the Romney/Bush Administration.  Even Steve Bannon was duped into believing only the Washington Establishment was capable of helping Trump prepare for his Presidency.  Highly capable conservatives, Reagan alumni, and professionals who were for Trump since June 2015, were systematically shut out.  Never-Trumpers, even ones who ran anti-Trump floor operations at the Republican National Convention, were welcomed.

The Romney/Bush Transition became the Romney/Bush Administration on January 20, 2017. At the same time, Reince Priebus and his minions from the Republican National Committee (RNC) took over core White House operations.  This included the Office of Presidential Personnel that clears and recommends all political appointees.  Priebus rightly deserves credit for quelling Republican rebellion in the final months of the 2016 campaign.  For this, Trump should have rewarded Preibus with the non-critical Ambassadorship of his choice.  Instead, Priebus became Chief of Staff and proceeded to fill Trump’s inner circle with RNC operatives, few of whom even liked Trump.  The RNC operatives in charge of Presidential Personnel placed their friends on Trump’s political front line.  They even conducted purges of the few Trump loyalists who had made it inside.  Ironically, Never-Trumpers got away with accusing Always-Trumpers of being disloyal.

While President Trump was signing Executive Orders and making inspiring speeches, the RINOgators of the Washington, DC swamp were commandeering key positions, making sure Trump’s vision would never become a lasting operational reality.  They are doing everything possible to protect their swamp.

The most tragic result of Trump being misled is that he is spending his time on actions that will be swept away with the next Administration.  The Washington swamp is drawing Trump into this trap.  Time magazine recently ran an alarmist cover story on Trump’s regulatory reductions.  Even Trump’s inner circle believes the hype. His communications director declared, “No President or Administration has deregulated or withdrawn as many anticipated regulatory actions as this one in this short amount of time.”  In reality, saving $560 million is a pittance against the $2+ trillion regulatory burden faced by America business.

At best, stopping new regulations is like trimming Kudzu.  All these bad policies and regulations have only been driven underground.  They remain in desk drawers and computer files ready to be unleashed. Unless the underlying policies, people, and laws are changed, all these sidelined regulations will spring forth the moment Trump leaves office. The people who would actually pull-up the regulatory Kudzu by its roots are not in place.  Washington, DC’s “RINOgators” have settled in to protect their status quo and wait out Trump.

Real and lasting change will happen only if Trump appoints sufficient numbers of his actual loyalists as soon as possible. He must act quickly and decisively to remove Bush/Romney traitors and replace them with those fully committed to his revolution.  Perhaps the dual attacks by Bush 41 and 43 will open Trump’s eyes to the treachery around him.

[Scot Faulkner advises corporations and governments on how to save billions of dollars by achieving dramatic and sustainable cost reductions while improving operational and service excellence. He served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives.  He also served on the White House Staff, and as an Executive Branch Appointee.]

TRUMPING IMMIGRATION

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6247901002205261824/

Also published on Newsmax.    #TRUMPING

President Trump is aligning immigration policy to our national wellbeing.  His approach is comprehensive and consistent.  It is a welcome change and not a moment too soon.

Immigration is a privilege not a right. 

A nation has every right and reason to make sure those who enter are who they say they are and those who want to stay are beneficial not burdensome.  It is amazing that these fundamental sovereignty issues are debated.

A border wall with Mexico is a necessary requirement for protecting national sovereignty and blocking future illegal immigration along America’ southern border.  Hopefully, Israel will be consulted on design as their walls are the most successful of the modern era.  National Park lands along the border could effectively use razor sharp sisal and other natural barriers to mitigate visual impacts.  Instilling a culture of proactive excellence among border and customs enforcement professionals is another critical element to assure our safety.

Eliminating sanctuary cities and reinstituting the rule of law is necessary for public safety.  Punishing companies who hire illegals must show that laws matter.  President Trump’s strong stand on enforcing immigration laws has already had an effect.  Intercepts of illegal immigrants along the Mexican border plummeted 40.5% from January to February.

Trump’s temporary ban on issuing visas to people from failed states is prudent and legal.  The six targeted countries continue to be chaotic war zones where viable public records are nonexistent.  Bribes and terrorist agendas creating fake identities are a border control nightmare.  Better to pause and plan, with appropriate documented waivers, until integrity is established

Trump aligning U.S. policy with established and proven policies in effect in other countries is a strategic step in the right direction.  Many nations use economic benefit as the guiding principle of their immigration policy.  Australia and New Zealand have always filtered for needed skills and education.  Australia issues visas to skilled workers based upon a points-based system, with points allocated for certain levels of education.  Visas are often sponsored by individual Australian States, according to their specific skill needs. Australian businesses also sponsor visas for highly sought after skilled workers.  Australia and New Zealand have never been assailed for racism or nativism.

In the 19^th Century, America needed people to populate its ever expanding territories.  The federal government gave transcontinental railways vast land grants to incentivize laying rails to link the continent.  The Northern Pacific and Great Northern railroads launched major advertising campaign throughout Scandinavia to attract settlers to turn their land grants into vibrant farming communities that, in turn, used the railroad to ship goods.

In 1882, U.S. policy turned away from economic development and went down the slippery slope of nationality based immigration.  Initially, California workers wanted to block Chinese immigrants to stabilize wages.  Other laws followed, which established national quotas instead of skill-based immigration.  This shift came to grief in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.  Liberals, led by Senators Ted Kennedy and Phil Hart, filled the legislation with diversity goals and codifying the concept of “anchor babies”, where a child of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil establishes entitlement for family members to move to America. 

President Bush supported the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT90), which established flexible immigration caps and made permanent the admission of "diversity immigrants" from "underrepresented" countries. The cumulative result opened the floodgates to burdensome instead of beneficial immigrants.  Immigration policy completely changed from economic wellbeing and security to a liberal social engineering effort.

The 1965 and 1990 laws completely wrecked U.S. immigration policy.  I encountered this bizarre new regulatory world, twice.  In the 1980s, I had to personally appeal to Attorney General Ed Meese to allow the former CEO of KLM and his wife to retire in Florida.  It was amazing that U.S. immigration officials had rejected a wealthy corporate executive because there were too many Dutch immigrants.  In 2006, I had to appeal to the Bush White House to allow a Swiss Doctor, and his Nurse Practitioner wife, to join their parents in America and work for a Washington area hospital.  These happened at the same time poverty stricken immigrants from Third World countries were being welcomed on a daily basis.

Liberals, and even some Republicans, have spent decades creating damaging and surreal U.S. immigration policies.  These policies threaten national security, burden government services, and deprive America of people who can substantively contribute to the national economy. 

Thankfully, during his February 28, 2017 speech to Congress President Trump embraced a “merit based” immigration policy to benefit America’s economic revitalization.  Trump’s subsequent Executive Orders and initiatives are putting our national interest in the right place, in the right ways.