Seeing the Round Corners

HEADS UP, the new day for Seeing the Round Corners “GOING LIVE” is Tuesday each week.

January 5, 2021

The column for this week brings one from this writer’s archives written at the beginning of President Trump’s administration. The reader is encouraged to think back to that time (just four years).
Throughout these last four years, President Trump has been absolutely abused by the main stream media and Democrats more than any other President in the history of this country. The manner in which President Trump has dealt with the abuse is beyond words. But guess what – take a look at the statistics of admirable men in America this week. President Trump (18%) is the most admired, even edging out former President Obama (15%). Former Vice President Joe Biden came in at 6%.

Today’s column from the archives should give pause to readers on a number of fronts, but especially looking at the number of bureaucrats from previous administrations that Biden has named to his cabinet IF he becomes president.

February 20, 2017

It is indeed downright refreshing to see a President do what so many of us ordinary Americans wish for – say it like it is. America had sunk into such a deep abyss in the zeal for political correctness, long and laborious speeches at times were nearly incoherent nothingness.

President Trump was attacked for his “dark” inaugural speech by what at first seemed every news outlet in America. At least that would seem to be the case if Americans believed the case portrayed by the press itself. The mainstream media has continued its attack on the new President with aggressiveness never seen before in this country, and at times, cross-examining the President in a disrespectful manner. Leftover federal bureaucrats have only fueled such attitudes to the new President.  

President Trump was accused of making a “dark” inaugural address and painting a “grim picture” when he said, “mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system flush with cash but which leaves our . . . students deprived of all knowledge, and the crime and the gangs and the drugs . . .”

History aficionados point out this excerpt from a former Democratic President – remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)? – “I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished . . . The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”  To this writer’s knowledge, FDR has never been accused of making a “dark” inaugural address.

The statement from President Trump’s address that will likely make it the most controversial, but also most memorable:  “From this day forward it’s going to be only America first.” As further emphasis for the content of that statement, the President said, “Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.” (This writer must applaud such a statement. It is wonderful to see America put first.)

The antics of leftover bureaucrats from the previous administration are now coming to light. An analysis by The Hill showed “about 95 percent of political contributions went to Democrat Hillary Clinton during the Presidential race.”

In the U. S. State Department “nearly 1,000 government workers signed a letter protesting Trumps executive order on refugees.” That act of defiance was followed by yet another when Acting Attorney General Sally Yates refused to defend the Trump administration’s refugee policy, and was promptly fired. (Look for an in-depth future column(s) on the nightmare of firing federal employees.)

The arrogance being shown the new President is, of course, covered ad nausem by a biased media, prompting a former Republican House staffer, Neil Siefring, now vice president of Hilltop Advocacy, to offer this analysis:  “If a federal employee doesn’t like the ideological foundation or likely outcomes of a presidential directive, it doesn’t mean that the directive is not legal. It means that the views of the federal employee(s) are in conflict with the views of the president who runs the federal government.”

The press secretary for the administration, Sean Spicer, opined a somewhat more blunt assessment of federal employees who disagree with the President:  “State Department employees who oppose the policy [the ban] ‘should either get with the program or go.’” 

The Washington Post reported last week that “some of those federal workers are now in consultation with departed Obama administration officials to determine how they can push back against the Trump Administration.”

A federal judge in the District Court of Massachusetts analyzed the relevant statute on the ban, 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(f) – the executive order is fully within the president’s authority:  “The decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute’ realized through the legislative and executive branches that is ‘largely immune from judicial control,’” – and ending with this, “the executive order is facially legitimate and bona fide”

The reader's comments or questions are always welcome. E-mail me at