Trump’s Communications Pick Invites Legitimate Questions on Principles and Loyalty

Does “full transparency” mean you can see right through him? (Anthony Scarmucci/Facebook)

“Full transparency: I’m deleting old tweets,” Anthony Scarmucci, President Donald Trump’s choice for White House Communications Director posted to his Twitter feed. “Past views evolved & shouldn’t be a distraction. I serve @POTUS agenda & that’s all that matters”

Have they? Shouldn’t they be? Does he and is it?

“Progressive” opponents of the president are having a field day and proving the adage “The internet is forever.” That’s because Scarmucci’s Twitter activity showed positions directly opposed to Trump’s, on immigration, on climate change, and of special concern to those who believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, on guns, including:

and:

We would be remiss not to recall that before Trump became the darling of the NRA, his position on guns would have failed to make the grade. True, he was the recipient of one of those concealed carry permits New York City reserves for its elites, but that only proves self-interest, and his other positions, not to put too fine a point on it, sucked. For example:

“I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.”

Add to that Trump’s past strong financial support for Democrats ranging from Frank Lautenberg, to Chuck Schumer to Hillary Clinton, and it’s hard to argue that his consistency is in his principles, as opposed to in his self- interests.

Just the cost of doing business? Well paying those costs undermined the interests of the millions of his countrymen who believe in a Constitution of limited delegated powers and rights that are supposedly off limits to infringements.  Have Trump’s “past views evolved,” like Scarmucci says his have?

Some of us have a tough time with that. We’re not used to dealing with chameleons and those of inconstant and mutable convictions. If you can change your principles the way you change your socks, do you really have any, or are they mere outward-directed fabrications, subject to being altered or abandoned altogether when political winds shift?

And is a guy like Scarmucci “transparent” or merely someone who is hollow and not all that difficult to see through? Maybe he doesn’t need to have unshakeable beliefs in order to do his job, which, after all, is to come up with excuses, diversions and happy talk to offset a media pretty much doing the same thing to see that the illusions it casts are the ones that prevail. Still, just the fact that communications come down through him makes their credibility susceptible to the type of ridicule now being heaped on the administration by its political and media enemies.

And all that said, how can Trump trust the guy, and why shouldn’t we believe he’ll turn on his new master if and when he’s offered a better deal? Are not betrayals and leaks (something Scarmucci vows to stop, incidentally) from within the administration being committed to bring about the president’s downfall, meaning to kill the very policies that induced flyover America to vote for the man?

For that matter, it’s good that President Trump has articulated some needed policy goals and achieved some limited successes where the Democrat/insider Republican axis hasn’t been able to stop him. That said, who is confident he won’t reexamine his principles if that’s what it takes to hold on to power?

Related to all this: NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch tweeted her concern over the Scarmucci appointment, but it was taken down and NRA refused to state a position on the matter. This whole business of those purporting to be leaders deleting the record is reminsicent of a similar effort to rewrite history by burying inconvenient truths. Our side is supposed to be better than that.

I had a chance to discuss this story Sunday night on Armed American Radio with host Mark Walters (download Hour 3 to listen).

 —–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?

 

Categories: 2nd_amendment, All

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. John Ridgeway 28 July, 2017, 09:33

    I was a 2A “Butter” until about 2010-2011 time frame. I was introduced to JPFO.org and now I’m a Zero Infringement advocate.

    Reply this comment
  2. Edwin Vieira 28 July, 2017, 10:20

    Just for the record: We shall know quite a bit more about Trump when we see if the Administration becomes an amicus curiae in the Kolbe v. Hogan case, now before the Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari, I have already contacted Trump, urging him to file such a brief because of the adverse effect of the Kolbe decision on his own Presidential powers as Commander in Chief of the Militia. To any President who reads the Constitution, the relevant statutes (10 U.S.C. 251, 252, and 253), and the Kolbe decision, the necessity for intervention in the case should be obvious. But we shall see. (Trump’s appointment of “the Mooch” and the NRA’s apparent willingness to downplay the fellow’s record on “gun control” are not encouraging.)

    Reply this comment
    • Frank 28 July, 2017, 11:22

      I agree this is a troubling appointment, and a dodge of the truth.
      I don’t have the Kolbe case at hand, Dr. Vieira. Give us a link maybe to something you have written on this, please.

      Reply this comment
  3. Brian 28 July, 2017, 10:59

    We’ve had FAR too many that tell one story (to get elected/get a position/maintain power/perform damage control), but actually believe and feel something else … A history of negative gun-control positions exposes some very broken logic at best, and an entire lack of appropriate knowledge at worst. In either case, it means “NOT QUALIFIED”. We don’t need subversives and moles…. we need patriots.

    Reply this comment
  4. woodeye 28 July, 2017, 11:07

    What’s wrong with that picture???
    Can’t you see the yellow-fringed flag?

    Reply this comment
  5. Richard 28 July, 2017, 11:16

    Would you rather have Hilliary?
    I have given up on the Republicans and Democraps. I am leaning very heavily in favor of Christian-Libertarian. May GOD bless the Republic and the men and women of our Armed Forces.

    Reply this comment
  6. Larry B. 28 July, 2017, 15:57

    Trump has proven, – maybe to the point of excess, – that he is malleable; whereas the anti gun positions of the screeching psychedelic relic lying witch Hillary, [you can bet], were/are SET IN STONE!
    PS, I have the HIGHEST regard for David Codrea.

    Reply this comment
  7. Green Giant 28 July, 2017, 21:50

    Trump continues to fall short in so many areas. What about the promise of DAY ONE getting rid of DACA. We still have it. And now Texas is having to threaten to sue to get it stopped. Embassy in Jerusalem? How about just ignoring those corrupt illegal federal judges. Is he afraid? I question Spicer’s leaving. He was doing a great job antagonizing the media.
    And all he has to do is issue a EO stopping the funding of Obamacare. It worked for Obama. And why does he not have Hillary under indictment for the Clinton Foundation.
    And ow about that much needed PARDON for the servicemen who were railroaded by Obama’s puppet military. And has he NOT been able to stop the prosecution of the Bundys and that other family the DOJ wrongly persecuted.
    Why does he continue to want to REPLACE Obamacare. It would be BEST to just get rid of it. Go back to the way it was. And about those insurance companies. Record profits while claiming they aren’t making enough. Sounds like they have CONTROL

    Reply this comment
  8. Bill H 10 August, 2017, 03:38

    The First and Second Amendments are quite clear. Our Progressive Elites have no business continually trying to rewrite, reinterpret, or go around it. For that matter, the rest of the Bill of Rights, up to and including Ten should be left alone; above Ten, possibly we need some changes.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*