The oppose-it-all, oppose-it-now, oppose-it-forever campaign of the Left is getting more and more desperate as reality sets in. This month, the balance of President Trump's Cabinet will be confirmed, Judge Neil Gorsuch will continue on his smooth path to Senate confirmation, and voting on the big ticket items on the White House's conservative reform agenda will commence. This means that we should all expect more hyperventilating from the liberal media about meetings with the Russian ambassador, more anti-free speech outbursts at liberal universities, more juvenile calls for the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and maybe even an appearance by the community organizer-in-chief himself, President Barack Obama.
This destructive strategy of permanent obstruction is all that remains of the shrinking liberal ideology in America.
In the lead-up to Trump's incredibly well-received address to Congress, former Attorney General Eric Holder made news when he said Obama is poised to re-enter the political arena and is "ready to roll." This strategic announcement was meant to let the unhinged resistance know that their savior is ready to fight the Trump agenda.
Then, a few hours later, Trump delivered the best speech of his political career in which he laid out his common-sense agenda, including popular items like tax reform, enforcing immigration laws, and repealing and replacing the disaster that is Obamacare. Upon watching the presidential address, polling found that 57 percent of the American people had a very positive view of the speech, and almost 70 percent said the policies outlined would move the country in the right direction. Commanding numbers such as these are virtually non-existent in the United States today and must be causing panic attacks in liberal enclaves.
The best course of action for Trump going forward is to visit the many states he carried that have Democratic senators up for re-election in 2018 and repeat the speech he made to Congress at each stop. As Trump's optimistic and even-handed message continues to sink in, the chorus from the Left will become loonier. As more voters hear the president's agenda in states such as Missouri, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio, it will pick up more bipartisan support from Democratic senators in these states because their constituents will demand it. The bad news for the Left is that most people want economic growth, better and cheaper healthcare, and sanctuary city reform — and that's exactly what they're going to get over the next couple months, because Trump keeps his promises.
If Obama takes a public leadership role in the failing "resist Trump" effort, he will damage his legacy. Most Americans understandably want their president to succeed. Reasonable people believe that when the president succeeds, Americans will be better off. The mood of the country improves, optimism increases, and the future seems brighter. Obama taking on his successor's agenda in the public arena is not something most Americans will appreciate. President Bill Clinton got out of the way of President George W. Bush. Bush got out of the way of Obama. These men understood that in the U.S. we have elections, elections have consequences, and one of the consequences is the winner gets to set the agenda.
It's not surprising that the Left is having a hard time coming to grips with voters' decision to reject a third Obama term. The people chose a Republican president, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House. By doing so, they chose to have Obamacare replaced with something that works, they chose a conservative as Supreme Court Justice Scalia's successor, and they chose to put "America First." Obama should respect the results of the election and focus instead on improving his golf game.
Trump's greatest strength is his ability to deliver his message of reform directly to the American people, just like I witnessed first-hand during the presidential campaign. If he stays on the principles he laid out before Congress, more of his agenda will be enacted and our country will be a much better place to live.
David N. Bossie is president of Citizens United and served as President Trump's deputy campaign manager.
POLITICO: “Fox News Channel has signed Citizens United president and President Donald Trump’s former deputy campaign manager David Bossie as a contributor. He will offer political analysis across Fox News and Fox Business Network’s daytime and primetime programming effective immediately.”
In fact, we filed one of only three amicus briefs supporting the President’s Executive Order, ours being filed on behalf of the United States Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate of the United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center. Our brief focused on two issues: the President’s statutory authority to suspend or even bar entry into the United States of any alien or group of aliens, demonstrating that his power has never been successfully challenged — and often has never been challenged at all. Secondly, our brief demonstrated the flaws in the vetting process for refugees, citing a report done by the Obama Department of Homeland Security. Neither of these matters were addressed even in passing by the panel.
Democrats should think twice before using parliamentary tactics to delay or block President-elect Donald Trump's forthcoming nominee for the Supreme Court. The American people know the difference between holding up a nomination that would change the ideological balance of the court in the midst of a presidential election and denying the new president the opportunity to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia with a qualified conservative.
When Scalia passed away last February, high stakes Supreme Court politics were injected into an already contentious presidential election season. With the high court down to eight justices and the specter of many 4-4 deadlocked decisions on the horizon, President Obama wasted no time nominating liberal federal Judge Merrick Garland as his choice to succeed Scalia. Liberals sensed an enormous opportunity to score some controversial 5-4 court victories, which before Scalia's death would not have been possible.
To his credit, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stood tall and shut down any hope that Garland would get a hearing before the presidential election when he unequivocally stated: "the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court's direction ..."
Democratic leaders smelled blood in the water and attempted to make McConnell's principled position an election issue. Attack ads were launched trying to convince Republican senators in close races to embrace a hearing for Garland. Democrats dreamed of Hillary Clinton scoring political points nationally with a "stop blocking Garland" line of attack against GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. As it turned out, the American people would have none of it. Donald Trump was elected president with 306 electoral votes and swing state senators on the ballot like Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida all prevailed — as did Trump on top of the ticket in each of these critically important electoral states.
The American people said loud and clear that they wanted a Republican president and a Republican-led Senate to pick Scalia's replacement. Hillary Clinton's stated judicial priorities, such as overturning free speech rights granted in the Citizens United case and severely limiting the Second Amendment, were of great concern to voters. The election confirmed what conservatives had hoped was the case: Putting a liberal on the bench to replace Scalia would tip the balance of the court too far to the left.
The election notwithstanding, bitter Democrats are now threatening to block President-elect Trump's Supreme Court choice — apparently whoever it turns out to be — as revenge for the Republican strategy with regard to Merrick Garland's nomination. "Past is present, and what goes around comes around," is how Sen. Dianne Feinstein recently put it.
This strategy — if employed — is a big risk for Democrats. In 2018, 23 Senate seats currently occupied by Democrats are up for election. Two more are occupied by independents who caucus with the Democrats. Ten of those Senate seats are in states carried by Donald Trump. If Senate Democrats try to block President-elect Trump's nominee to replace Scalia, they will face the wrath of voters in those states, voters who clearly understand what is at stake. The outcome could leave Democrats with 40 or fewer Senate seats following the 2018 elections, a result that would give Republicans a filibuster-proof majority in the upper house.
The truth is that even with Scalia on the bench, the court was hardly a surefire 5-4 conservative majority, when you consider the recent Obamacare and gay marriage rulings. At most, the anticipated Trump selection will maintain the balance as it was prior to Scalia's passing, while Merrick Garland would have moved the court to the left. The Democrats should question the wisdom of moving to block our new president's Supreme Court pick for some sort of misguided political revenge.
J.T. Mastranadi is vice president for governmental affairs at Citizens United.
In the past week, we’ve learned two critical facts in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. First and foremost, an email has surfaced in which Hillary Clinton seemingly instructs a member of her senior staff to break the law. Secondly, we now know the FBI has expanded its investigation of Hillary Clinton to include a public corruption aspect having to do with how her State Department interfaced with her family foundation.
This has led to speculation that the FBI will almost certainly recommend criminal charges to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Loretta Lynch should do herself a favor and take this all-important decision out of the hands of Democrat political appointees at the Justice Department and admit what everyone already knows - that she has a clear conflict of interest in this case. By appointing an impartial special counsel, Loretta Lynch would be putting the justice system and the rule of law above politics.
Citizens United first called for a special counsel on July 29, 2015.