Bringing the Classroom to Order

I read with interest the many articles, columns and social media comments over the last several days that spoke with great regret, or in other cases unmitigated joy, about the "failure" of President Trump to quickly and easily nix Obamacare.  I personally saw and see this entire affair rather differently -- and for several reasons.

The first is how the unfolding of things illustrated how silly have been the charges and fears that Donald Trump is some sort of Attila the Hun -- a man looking to seize power and do away with our nation's democratic and republican ideals.  For in fact he demonstrated just the opposite qualities. -Flexibility and willingness to work with congress -- and a demonstrated understanding of where the responsibilities of the executive branch leave off and those of the legislative branch begin.  -Something the nation had almost forgotten about under the sorry reign of King Barack.

Secondly we saw -- and what a refreshing change! -- a president who once again saw himself as a representative of the people who elected him, not of a political party.  "Winning" for the Republican Party was not key. Standing by what he promised the people was.  (That the media somehow did not/do not see this -- or, as likely, do but wish to squelch it -- has been rather amazing.)

And by doing both the above something else was lit up in bright lights: The degree that the president's own amazing words at his inauguration are really true -- that we "are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the people."

The Democrats to a man refused to support undoing Obamacare -- this despite almost universal recognition that it has hurt the American people, and hurt them badly. That it was built on falsehoods and outright lies.

The Republican party, on the other hand, demonstrated how empty their party promises have been. That after nearly eight years of complaining and fault finding they were not prepared to act on the people's behalf, only to talk and squabble among themselves.

Political pressure -- greatly added to by the snipping and sneering of the media and the various party elites -- did not deflect the president an iota. He was willing to bend, but not fold, on what he understood the people needed and/or from what he himself promised.

Instead he swallowed his pride -- something his critics told us he would never do -- and simply walked away.

Legislation responsibilities belong to the legislature. President Trump has placed it back in 'their court' -- just where such should be.

No, the story does not end here.  In a sense it just begins. And that is exactly as it should be.

If we blot out the noise and stand just a bit above the fray of the moment something becomes very clear:  We have a man -- a true leader -- standing above the boys. We will now see him, step-by-step, take control of the unruly classroom and bring it to order. And that for all our sake.

This piece appeared on American Thinker

They Do. I Do.

Yahoo News has headlined a story "Starbucks CEO's refugee comments sour customer views of chain." This is the third similarly themed article I have seen in recent days. The other two concern the cereal make Kellogg's and its sub companies including Keebler cookies and the Target chain of stores -- both of which, also, have seen huge losses in sales attributed in part to having taken strong stands on politically sensitive subjects of importance to many of the American people.

Personally I do not generally let another person's political POV affect my business dealings with them. No more than I do the private views of a performing artist.

But if a company itself chooses to make a public issue of a political stand that I personally find repugnant that changes things for me. -I.e., if they choose to make something an issue then I go along with their decision and do allow it to influence my shopping habits. Completely.

Starbucks has taken such a stand several times. Not quietly, but boldly. Even going as far as encouraging their shop personnel to start discussions with patrons and encourage such to share the company's internationalist perspective. No thank you Starbucks. I just wanted a cup of coffee.

If I am offered Starbucks coffee I am willing to drink it. (I much prefer Peet's) But I do not generally choose to go any longer into a Starbucks shop.

Target made a big thing a while back about their toilets and changing rooms being open to anyone based solely on their personal gender choice. Now if their concern for gender confused people moved them to make their facilities totally private so that any and all could feel comfortable using them that would to me be a fine thing. But when the company publicly stated that women who were not comfortable with physical males sharing the facilities were somehow morally deficient -- well that crossed a line in my eyes. Offensively so. I therefore choose to do my shopping elsewhere.

Kellogg's cereal went even further. When then candidate Donald Trump invited Breitbart dot com's editor, Stephen Bannon, to work for him, Kellogg's very publicly stated that they would no longer advertise on Breitbart dot com because such did not "reflect their values."

Okay. That, too, is their right. But Bannon and Breitbart and Donald Trump do largely reflect my personal values. If such offends Kellogg's then my business goes elsewhere. Bye-bye Kellogg's Shredded Wheat. Bye-bye Keebler Pecan Sandies cookies.

Frankly I think a business taking such a public stand on a private issue is stupid. But they have the right to do such, and be such. And I can only respect their expressing that right by myself acting in accordance with it.

Roughly 50% of the American people think roughly as I do. Why a company would want to turn such away is beyond me. But again... That's their right.

So bye-bye Kellogg's. Bye-bye Target. Bye-bye Starbucks.

To me it is as simple -- and as firm -- as that.

"Bye-bye."