Vail Daily letter: Trump as president
I must say that the Rev. Van Ens is a source of socio-liberal concepts regarding all things political. “The majority of Americans are too intelligent to elect a president who acts like a monarch.” Incredible! The good reverend actually penned this in his article of Aug. 30. To put this pronouncement in context, Van Ens went on to say, “There’s an enormous difference in skills between running a real estate corporation and serving as president.” I say that this difference determines either success and prosperity or failure and burdensome debt.
History has shown that the “skills” the present occupant in the White House “brought to the table” were: No work experience in the private sector, no understanding of basic economics, and no knowledge of the Constitution, albeit, he purportedly claimed to have taught it to newly minted lawyers. What Mr. Obama did proffer as “qualifications” for the presidency were: Community activism or agitation, a Marxist philosophy, secrecy, spin and parsing. Yet, the “majority of Americans” elected him for the office, notwithstanding. Were those voters intelligent or dupes? I can say that I was of the unintelligent ones in the minority.
Van Ens and Obama aver that to be qualified for the presidency one must be a “politician” with a resume replete with a governmental work experience. Otherwise, how could we run up such an astounding debt ($18-plus trillion), foment a feckless foreign policy, draw “red lines” in the Middle East, and negotiate a “deal” with Iran that betrays a loyal ally (Israel) — are not these just wonderful accomplishments by a “qualified” straw-man like Mr. Obama? Rather a la Van Ens, Mr. Trump is admittedly “unqualified” for the executive job as he is not a politician; he is not a pathological liar; he is not a career opportunist seeking a lifetime vacation and stipend from the toils of taxpayers.
A brash and abrasive personality aside, what Trump would bring to the presidency is a lifetime of executive experience in the private sector fraught with inhibiting governmental regulations and excessive taxation. And yet in spite of those obstacles, he was an astounding success in that endeavor. Having experienced the travails, trials and tribulations of a taxpayer in the private sector, would he not better understand how ruinous and inhibitive government can be? Would not Trump understand the “art of the deal” when negotiating with another, whereby both parties benefit therefrom. Would he not better understand the concept of “cost” in order to realize a “profit” — just imagine, if government could at least balance the budget let alone make a profit from its operations!
Perhaps a capitalist in the vein of Mr. Trump may be a sea change from the socio/politico/religico approach that Van Ens and his majority have pursued to the far reaches of national insolvency and bankruptcy. Perhaps Mr. Trump will return us to the “rule of law” as manifested in the Constitution, statutorily enacted by a legislature, and enforced (as written) by a man of his word. This would be a novel concept for Mr. Van Ens and his liberal majority to comprehend — it is also known as “intellectual honesty”.