Trump vs the Deep State

The Deep State? If you haven’t heard, it’s a fairly new phrase which is gaining currency – started with the Wisconsin government attempting by means fair and foul to undermine Governor Walker’s reform effort. The concept of it is that members of the permanent bureaucracy – mostly Democrats but all of them regardless of political outlook having a vested interest in keeping things as they are – will simply destroy anyone who dares to reform government in a meaningful way. The underlying ideology is deeply based in Progressive beliefs about government – namely, that a set of experts, installed in government, can manage society better than the free flowing actions of the people. To be sure, such experts are willing to maintain the form of a democratic republic, but the bottom line is that the people, individually and collectively, are not to have a say in the basic direction of government policy.

And then along came Trump.

Trump is an inherent reformer because he has no loyalty to things as they are. He might propose reforms which are wrong – and even wrong-headed – but whatever he proposes will be based upon what he perceives as the right course of action, the vested interests of government and it’s cronies be damned. This is why the party of government (Democrats, MSM, a good selection of the GOP, those who make their living directly or indirectly off government expenditures) is up in arms – hyperventilating at an astonishing pace and acting as if their very lives (which they consider the life-force of the United States) were at stake. The bottom line is that these people have no legal mechanism to enforce their will; they can’t force a new election; they can’t even force an impeachment because that would require the cooperation of such a large number of Republicans (who, even if not Trump supporters, fear the electoral wrath of outraged Trumpsters) as to make it next to impossible. They only power they have is to sow confusion and hatred and hope, by some miracle, that a correlation of forces will arise to drive Trump from office. In other words, all they have is the Deep State – and they are using it to the limit to get after Trump.

I was struck by what happened to Flynn – I compare it to what happened to German generals Blomberg and Fritsch. Blomberg was Commander in Chief of the German army in the 1930’s, while Fritsch was the man most likely to succeed Blomberg in that post. While both of them were ok with Hitler’s Nazi regime, they were determined to keep the army out of Nazi party hands – and this irritated Hitler and his henchmen. By use of various secret police files to cook up scandals, Hitler managed to get rid of both men in succession, whereupon he took full control of the Army, thus getting rid of the last check upon his autocratic power. As regards Flynn, it appears that various members of our intelligence community selectively leaked information which, translated by MSM hostility, made it appear that Flynn was doing something wrong. Flynn managed to get himself caught up in the web by failure to be completely frank with Vice President Pence (and perhaps President Trump, as well). But the main agent of Flynn’s undoing was the Deep State’s determination that he be destroyed – likely as part of a larger plan to undo Trump entirely. And for all Trump’s opponents claiming that he’s some sort of proto-fascist, I note with great care that the side using fascist tactics is the anti-Trump side.

Over the past few days, I’ve seen some interesting statements on social media. This one from Bill Kristol was flabbergasting:

Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.

This is a guy whom I’ve read for years and respected. He just showed himself to be someone who is entirely opposed to the workings of a democratic republic. You can’t prefer anything to normal democratic and constitutional politics. Rely on it, if we cease to use normal democratic and constitutional politics, Bill, it won’t be you or anyone you like calling the shots. Was Kristol ever on the same side as me? I really do wonder.

Back in 2003, I backed the Iraq campaign – so did Kristol, from what I can recall. I backed it because I felt it a necessary step to remove a troublesome regime and it would put us athwart the Iran-Syria axis, thus allowing us to deal with each of them piecemeal. Didn’t work out that way. We sat down in Baghdad and allowed our forces to become the targets in a shooting range. A huge number of mistakes were made, but I still believe I made the right choice in backing the Iraq campaign in the context of the times. Fast forward 14 years, and I’m wondering how many other people like Kristol were in the mix? What did they believe? Did they believe that a final reckoning with Iran and Syria was the wrong move? If they believed that, did they then do what they could to thwart action beyond Iraq by President Bush? Did our tactical mistakes in Iraq stem from the field, or from DC, where Deep State people set out to ensure that American power was misapplied? I just don’t know – and I’ll likely never know with any certainty…but Kristol’s statement isn’t unique, I’ve seen others – including some who claim to be former members of our intelligence community – who are seriously rooting for the IC to take down Trump; seriously, gleefully rubbing their hands at the prospect of the IC cooking the books until Trump is forced to resign or is impeached.

Do they realize that would spark a civil war? Are they that stupid? Don’t they understand that most of the people who would be willing to fight are on Trump’s side?

In the end, I don’t think they’ll get Trump. Right now, depending on the poll, Trump is approved of by anywhere from 39% to 55% of the American people, so don’t pay attention to polling on what is going on. But I do believe that, at bottom, in a fight between Outsider Trump and anyone Inside, Trump will win – people do have immense contempt for government, for the MSM and for those who cheer lead for same. But only time will really tell.

Advertisements

45 thoughts on “Trump vs the Deep State

  1. Retired Spook February 16, 2017 / 11:40 pm

    Has the makings of a great movie, doesn’t it? If Trump hasn’t already established a private security/intelligence force that answers only to him, I think it would be a wise move to do so. He needs people he can trust to root out the ones he can’t.

    • M. Noonan February 17, 2017 / 12:43 am

      Heard that he’s bringing in a friend to review the intelligence agencies – a good first step.

    • jdge1 February 17, 2017 / 12:21 pm

      He needs people he can trust to root out the ones he can’t.

      And there lies part of the problem. How do you root out people who are essentially granted lifetime tenure, such as most civil service employees and judgeships? We know it can be done but that would require a congress with a backbone and united enough to make the necessary changes. I won’t say it can’t be done but remain skeptical that it will happen before the 2018 congress is elected and then only if enough true right side replacements take the seats of RINO’s and left politicians. It’ll help if / when judges are replaced by either retirement or being forced out through extreme activist opinions (anything less doesn’t seem to push far enough for congress to act), but that too will take time and might still not be enough.

      As to Trump finding and hiring people he can trust, it seems every administration continuously shuffles their administration, in part because of ineffectiveness or acting against the wishes of the president.

      • Retired Spook February 17, 2017 / 12:51 pm

        And there lies part of the problem. How do you root out people who are essentially granted lifetime tenure,

        I’d concentrate on the ones that are breaking the law, like leaking highly classified information. Tenure doesn’t protect you from violations of the Espionage Act. After rooting them out (and I would make an incredible example of them), I’d turn my attention to bureaucrats who are actively disobeying orders to implement policy. Trump has an advantage over every other president in that he has a business empire of thousands of trusted, loyal employees. If I were him, I’d recruit some of them to infiltrate bureaucracies and identify the most egregious of the opposition. The members of the Deep State are accustomed to not having push-back to their antics. There’s every indication that Trump will not just push back, but punch back twice as hard.

      • Amazona February 17, 2017 / 3:07 pm

        Over the years I have known a lot of Civil Service employees who are dedicated and want to do good jobs but are stymied by the entrenched upper levels which are not productive, which are politically motivated, etc. I believe that a law allowing unproductive and/or subversive bureaucrats to be suspended without pay until a hearing is held to determine if they have been insubordinate, etc. opening up those positions to people who want to do better would create a tectonic shift in our government agencies.

        Ditto for judges/lawyers. I know a lot of lawyers who are furious with the judicial system. There are cases in Wyoming in which motions have never been ruled on, for years. I personally know of a situation in Colorado where one judge simply declared a participant in a civil case guilty of a felony, completely unrelated to the case he was hearing, a ruling which went into the public record and was then used against him, and his effort to have this addressed by filing a violation of civil rights case, of lack of due process, was thrown out by a judge in the federal court. There had been no accusation, no charges were filed, no complaint lodged, no one identified as an accuser, no hearing was held, but the decision is now part of the record of this person. Judges take care of each other. No matter what a judge says or does, he can count on his fellow judges to have his back, and he does the same for them, as they run riot over the law and the Constitution.

        We HAVE to have accountability for these people, and that means eliminating lifetime appointments, drastically changing the Civil Service rules, and making oaths of office binding, with penalties for violations.

      • M. Noonan February 18, 2017 / 12:02 am

        Edmund Morris, in his The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, went deep into the Civil Service Reform issue because TR was deeply involved in it – Roosevelt being appointed to the Civil Service Commission by President Harrison and kept on for a while by President Cleveland. Reading that gave me a good grasp of the basics – an in the basics, it was a fine effort. Andrew Jackson had started the “spoils system” where, at every change of Administration, just about every federal job was up for grabs, with many of them going to people with no other qualification than they were party stalwarts. This did tend to ensure that the general run of government bureaucrats was low – and often quite corrupt. Something did need to be done – but what eventually happened was to turn bureaucrats into tenured officials almost impossible to remove…and as the sort of people who gravitate to government, especially after the New Deal and Great Society, were people in love with the idea of big government, what we’ve got is a permanent class of government officials who work against any effort to reform government.

        Perhaps the solution is to make at least the upper levels of the bureaucracy political appointees? Or at least make them removable at will by the President? At least that would make them think twice about engaging in political sabotage.

      • Amazona February 18, 2017 / 12:19 am

        Even if the upper level bureaucrats were just confined to doing their jobs as written and not expanding them or altering them to promote political agendas, that would be a help. I don’t think firing someone for insubordination is the same thing as just making him “… removable at will by the President..” Each agency head is appointed by the President and serves at the will of the President, and as any good CEO knows authority has to be delegated, so each agency head should be able to run his or her agency the way he or she thinks it should be run, consistent with the charter of the agency and the Constitution. I have a feeling Trump is appointing agency heads with that kind of structure in mind, and it appears he has been choosing people with the backbone to kick ass and take names. At least I hope so.

        Now that we know Chuckie Schumer knew what was in store for Trump officials when he bragged that taking on the intelligence agencies was dangerous because they could make his life miserable ten ways from Sunday, now that we know this was always a plan discussed at the very least with senior members of Congress and the Democrat Party, I hope we can start there and begin a cleanup of those agencies.

        To use a word chosen to make “Simon” twitch, a purge.

        It’s always fun to watch Leftist lingo popping up in Leftist commentary as pejoratives, isn’t it?

  2. Cluster February 17, 2017 / 8:24 am

    The only power they have is to sow confusion and hatred and hope, by some miracle, that a correlation of forces will arise to drive Trump from office.

    Excellent post Mark and spot on observation. I have watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN since inauguration and they ARE doing everything they can to delegitimize Trump and to paint his administration as confused bungling buffoons. Yesterday, Scarborough stated that he would prefer to cover policy but because Trump is so incompetent and such a liar, that he and the network are compelled to cover that instead. This morning, Scarborough related the story of how “they” ran Newt Gingrich out of town by one bad media story after another and how that could also play out with Trump, suggesting to me anyway that that is the concerted plan by the media.

    The “Deep State” is the Clerisy, of which I wrote about a year or two ago. This includes the media, federal bureaucrats, corporatists, and academia. All of these institutions are littered with career, union Democrats with big salaries and big pensions who see Trump and conservatism as an existential threat, and this is the fight we find ourselves in now. First we had to vanquish the Clinton machine and the GOP establishment, and now we are up against the Clerisy. We will prevail.

    And just an aside, I also use to like Bill Kristol but he showed me his true colors in 2015 when he led the anti Trump movement. I would be interested in hearing Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry’s take on this. I have a feeling there are more “deep state” republicans than you think.

    • Retired Spook February 17, 2017 / 10:16 am

      Just watched Rich Lowry on Fox and Friends. He seemed to be quite complimentary of Trump’s performance.

      My retired navy buddy in Wyoming emailed me yesterday that he was watching CNN in a doctor’s waiting room and had to change the station is was so disgusting.

    • simoneee9 February 17, 2017 / 9:09 pm

      > to paint his administration as confused bungling buffoons

      You don’t think Trump is doing this on his own?

      • Amazona February 18, 2017 / 12:12 am

        Too bad, so sad, having to face four years without an administration filled with tax cheats, pedophiles, domestic terrorists acting as advisers and ghost writers, criminals and communists. You are clearly in mourning for the wonderful days of Obama, and quite terrified of the prospect of competent ethical people running the country. The comparison is going to be more obvious every single day, which is why you and your ilk are so desperate to sling as much mud as you can to try to hamper every effort to transition from the fundamentally transformed United States back to the country it was meant to be.

      • Amazona February 18, 2017 / 12:32 am

        As “Simon” is sensitive to “bumbling buffoons” I wonder why he hasn’t commented on Michael Moore’s bizarre exposition of his profound ignorance. He not only thinks that if Trump were to be removed from office, Pence should be as well, because he has taken the fantasy of Russia influencing the election by letting people see the truth about the Dems to a new level, which he calls “fraud” and according to His Lardship this means Pence would have to go, too. Then, as he develops his unique theory of American governance, the Supreme Court could just cancel out whatever Constitutional Amendment he doesn’t like, rewrite the election laws, and simply appoint the loser in the election to the office of the presidency.

        Oh, and this is to reinstate and protect the democratic process.

        Only on the Left could this be accepted without outright guffawing and getting a hook to drag the buffoon off stage—if enough strong stout men could be found to do it. It would take quite a crew. But seriously, this degree of ignorance, malice and utter stupidity is quite palatable to the Left, which is too busy trying to find something to whine about in Trump’s cabinet choices to bother to educate themselves about the rule of law in this country.

        Or to care.

      • Amazona February 18, 2017 / 12:49 am

        What makes Moore’s blathering so funny is that he claims that Trump won the presidency due to “fraud”.

        Let’s look at a couple of definitions of the term “fraud”: emphasis mine

        FRAUD, TO DEFRAUD. The term ‘fraud’ is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.
        ………………………………………………….

        While the exact wording of fraud charges varies among state and federal laws. the essential elements needed to prove a fraud claim in general include: (1) a misrepresentation of a material fact; (2) by a person or entity who knows or believes it to be false; (3) to a person or entity who justifiably relies on the misrepresentation; and (4) actual injury or loss resulting from his or her reliance

        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

        What makes this so funny is that whoever did release the information from the various emails did the exact OPPOSITE of misrepresenting fact. The information revealed was true, and no Dems ever tried to deny the accuracy of what was revealed. They're just mad that it came out.

        If the revelations DID influence the outcome of the election—which I personally think is just an effort by the Left to invent a way to explain the election that does not acknowledge its true nature, which was a rejection of the policies of the Democrat Party and the way it had been running the country—it was only because people were so deeply offended by the reality of the party and its leaders. There was no fraud, as it was the truth that hurt. There were no lies in what was revealed from those emails, and the only lies happened afterward, when the Left, caught in the act of its deception and corruption. started lying to try to create a new narrative that might make them look less, to use "Simon's" own word, bumbling.

        And corrupt, and mean, and nasty, and unethical, and dishonest, and abusive of trust and power, and incompetent, and endangering Americans, and lying about it. And creepy. In their own words.

        And BTW, even IF voters were influenced by learning the truth about Hillary and her antics and her cronies and her party and her State Department, they suffered no injury as the result. In fact, they avoided injury by not letting Hillary and the Left back into power.

      • Retired Spook February 18, 2017 / 12:05 pm

        Saw a picture of Michael Moore the other day with the caption, “Michael Moore was so upset by the outcome of the election that he went on a twenty-minute hunger strike.”

  3. Cluster February 17, 2017 / 9:14 am

    Great minds think alike. From AT this morning:

    However, we now have a more sinister power rearing its ugly head in the out-of-control leftists embedded deep in the heart of our intelligence agencies,and bureaucracies. Trump is now fighting a multiple-front war for his transformative agenda. He is facing an unhinged left, some remaining obstructionist fools in the GOP establishment, and a malevolently powerful deep state itself.

    I am loving the battle.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_lefts_oncemighty_echo_chamber_is_losing_power_.html#ixzz4YwocOoYD

  4. Retired Spook February 17, 2017 / 12:20 pm

    In the end, I don’t think they’ll get Trump.

    I agree, but I hope they keep trying. It’s pretty clear, at least up to now, that the Right is going to just let them continue to make fools of themselves. I hope that patience continues. That will simply translate into more GOP votes in 2018. The dilemma the Left faces is that they don’t have any good ideas, and they don’t have any attractive new faces. Their bench is pathetic, and what few gen-xers they have are radical Leftists. Rational people like Jim Webb have essentially been kicked out of the party. The ONLY way the Left gets back into power and advances its agenda is by force, and I know I’m beating a dead horse here, but our side has most of the warrior class and most of the guns.

    • Amazona February 17, 2017 / 2:54 pm

      Spook, keep in mind that the people we are talking about are not out there, identified and offering to be warriors for the Cause. They are skulking in the background, anonymous and protected by laws such as the Civil Service regulations. They have nothing to lose by being subversive and sabotaging the new administration. On the contrary, they get to feel powerful, able to act on their rage.

      Making them accountable for their actions will do a lot to change things. As I said in the post I just posted, responding to Rusty, there are ways to bring it home to them.

      One of the biggest weaknesses in our government is the power and authority assumed by the judiciary, which has no oversight and can basically do whatever it wants. Judges take oaths of office, which include following the law and upholding the Constitution, and if those oaths were to become binding they would at the very least have to examine their rulings to make sure that they at least have an element of compliance. It would slow them down, and some (hopefully many) would be kicked out within months. They are arrogant because right now they have the power of the government behind them. Once that changes, and the government is looking over their shoulders, the dynamic will change. The hard-core radicals will stick out their chins and challenge the government to do anything, and they can be kicked out pretty quickly, and the kinda-radicals may very well tuck their heads in to stay under the radar and keep their jobs.

      Government bureaucrats have the same attitude, that they are protected and once they have their jobs they can’t be fired. If that were to change, and they were to come under the same basic rules of employment the rest of the country works under—-“do your job, do it well, and do what the boss says”—-the same thing will happen. A few hardheads will test the new law, and once they are on the curb, with their salaries cut off till a ruling is made, and facing permanent dismissal, others will learn from this.

      Again, so much depends on communication. Every American is aware of the abuses of Civil Service. Every American has waited in line at a post office while one person works, slowly, and others on the staff sit around. Every American has had to deal with the DMV, the tax assessor, some Civil Service slacker who can’t be fired and knows it. Cleaning house will be something people understand even if they want to use it against Trump, and opening up those vacated jobs means that a lot of these people will fill them or know someone who does.

      But we have to move fast, so the work can be done and start to show results before the 2018 midterms. The clock is ticking, and dithering will just run it out.

      • jdge1 February 18, 2017 / 8:27 am

        The clock is ticking, but at the same time if we move too fast, we’ll be spinning wheels or worse yet, create setbacks. For example, until key people are in place, like Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch, making moves that are likely to be challenged and ruled against you, could backfire and set undesirable precedence. Trump would do well to tackle the items he knows he’ll get traction on, like jobs creation and setting change in place to rectify illegal voting. With those type of actions, he’ll produce a more favorable congress in 2018 where he can hammer the things he might otherwise lose on if he pushed for now. There certainly needs to be a balance and I imagine as he gets his feet wet he’ll have a better handle on how to best proceed. But as was already noted, Trump has a unique advantage of knowing a number of people in influential positions most other politicians don’t, giving him inroads to initiating change that might not otherwise be possible.

        At the same time, based on Trumps business experience, I would imagine he’s use to people doing what he ask and having it done, and will in many ways continue working in that mode. While that could work against him as DC rarely play by the same rules, it might also be a key attribute in laying down the line and forcing people, especially politicians, to take a position the public will judge them by.

  5. rustybrown2014 February 17, 2017 / 12:41 pm

    Great press conference. I know it was masterful because I can still hear liberal heads exploding from my window. Trump is literally pushing the left to the brink of insanity which is the exact charge they’re trying to use against him at the moment. Remember how the term “fake news” started out as a left wing accusation/talking point? Trump turned it into a right wing bumper sticker!

    Our president is one of the greatest manipulators I’ve ever seen. He’s always several steps ahead of his enemies and I don’t think they’ll ever catch him.

    • simoneee9 February 17, 2017 / 9:07 pm

      He came across as incoherent and rambling to me. Each to their own I guess.

      • Amazona February 18, 2017 / 12:05 am

        As if we don’t remember what it was like to watch Barry stumble through a comment that wasn’t written for him and put up on a teleprompter, and even then he had problems. Remember the time the teleprompter scrolled the same phrase twice and he just repeated it? He was nothing but a parrot, a hand puppet for his minders, and when he had to speak on his own he mumbled and stumbled and ahh’s and uhmm’d and uhh’d and made it clear he didn’t have a thought of his own but needed someone else to write scripts for him.

        Note to “Simon”—when you try to slime Trump, best to avoid areas where he shines in comparison to your guy Barry.

        To each their (sic) own I guess.

      • Cluster February 18, 2017 / 9:27 am

        Note to Simon – Trump’s inartful phrasing is part of his charm and a big reason why he is President. He is NOT a politician and he is NOT politically correct. This country finds itself in current chaos due directly to polished career politicians who were politically correct and delivered soaring rhetorical speeches that unfortunately delivered nothing of positive substance to the American people and to desire for that once again, is insanity.

  6. Amazona February 17, 2017 / 2:20 pm

    Congress could move quickly and decisively to pass two new bills, one making the oath of office binding, meaning that proof of violation would result (not “could result”) in immediate dismissal and loss of pension, and the other drastically revising Civil Service laws and regulations allowing for immediate termination for insubordination, subversion, and simply not doing the job or doing it well.

    This could be accomplished in a week, and would serve to warn the bureaucrats that they are now gambling with their own money, not Trump’s or the nation’s.

    The first bill would establish a panel to act much like a military court-martial, to hear and review accusations of failure to honor the oath of office, and the second could do the same thing if necessary to partially quiet the inevitable resulting firestorm of outrage and hysteria. Of course, anyone being investigated and set for a hearing would be temporarily suspended, without pay, till the issue is resolved.

    Have a panel in each state to deal with the scofflaws there, as most federal agencies have state branches. That would move things along pretty quickly. And if you don’t think there are plenty of mid-level federal workers who would jump at the chance to replace their bosses, you don’t know much about human nature. A quick bump up a salary level would inspire a lot of people to make some very fast decisions—(1) report sabotage from upper level management, (2) be ready to testify to that sabotage, and (3) agree to work with the new administration to not only keep a job but get a better one.

    • jdge1 February 18, 2017 / 9:02 am

      While I agree in these things in theory, I wonder how the left will use these very same things to sideline good people without pay, not willing to play their brand of ball. For example, we all know there are laws in the book that are unenforceable and / or in conflict with other laws. Even if we attempt to clean up these obvious defects which will take forever, there will still be smart lawyers able to dream up ways of twisting the meaning and intent of laws, thereby giving them ammunition to take out the opposition in ways different to the design of what you’re suggesting. Even as well as the Constitution was written, there are ambiguities or more than one hard fast interpretation to a number of its statues, as is evident by the non-consensus rulings of the SCOTUS. How can well meaning individuals uphold laws written by man, that can be interpreted different ways by different people and not fall into the trap of “not upholding the law”?

    • Amazona February 18, 2017 / 12:25 pm

      JDGE1, I have a visual mind, and my visual image of many of our laws is that of a wound with a bandage on it that didn’t quite do the job, so instead of taking it off and applying a new and different bandage Congress just slapped a new one on top of the old one, hoping to patch it where it leaked. When that didn’t solve the problem, another was put over the first two, and so on, till there is a stack of leaky stinky bandages and the original wound is still weeping and is now infected.

      We need a coherent plan to go back to those reeking messes and not just slap another “fix” on top of the old ones, but to strip them all away, get down to the original problem the original law was supposed to address, clean it all up and apply what is necessary to fix the problem itself, not the problems that popped up because the original “solution” created its own set of issues.

      As for the “non consensus rulings of the SCOTUS”, how many of them are due to political agendas overriding actual strict application of Constitutional law? We are seeing how this happens right now, as people are saying that Gorsuch should be approved because he is basically a replacement for Scalia, a conservative for a conservative, but when a Liberal justice retires or dies we should not allow that person to be replaced by a conservative. This is an open declaration that the Constitution itself should not be the defining factor of SCOTUS decisions, but that political ideology should be taken into consideration. That is so accepted now that few even question it. It is blatant, so blatant that quizzing by Senators doesn’t even try to hide the conviction that a justice’s confirmation depends on his or her positions on certain issues.

      I remember the first time I called into a talk radio show. I was in Denver one night and a conservative talk show host was taking calls to answer his question about whether Nominee Roberts’ position on abortion should be a consideration in his confirmation. Caller after caller said yes, and the host just kept taking calls. When I came on, I simply answered “no”. “No? Why not?” “Because the last thing I want in a Supreme Court justice is someone who will use that position to advance a personal philosophy instead of understanding that his job is simply to examine a law or a ruling to see if it does, or doesn’t, comply with the Constitution.” His response to that was “BINGO!!” and he went on to discuss the dangers of opposing Liberal activism on the Court with Conservative activism on the Court, as both corrupt it and by extension corrupt our entire government and rule of law.

      • jdge1 February 19, 2017 / 12:59 am

        AMAZONA, I absolutely agree with you how some SCOTUS members rule based on political convictions instead of original intent. I also agree that replacements to the court are often made with political orientation instead of strict interpretation of the Constitution and laws set forth by congress. But that’s why I wonder, as much as I like your idea in concept, if we instituted a rule as you suggested, forcing anyone who takes an oath to uphold our Constitution and laws, should they fail to live by that oath, face the potential consequences, up to removal from their position or maybe even jail. Given what we have to work with as stated above and a left who will do most anything to remove all opposition, it seems the good intent of such a law would be used against good people as much as or more than to weed out people not willing to live by their vows.

      • Amazona February 19, 2017 / 3:27 pm

        JDGE1, I don’t see how requiring people who take an oath to uphold the Constitution, for example, could be used against “good people” if we define “good people” as people who take their oaths seriously and actually do uphold the Constitution.

        I think jail would not be an appropriate penalty for violating an oath of office, but if the office depends on honoring the oath then violating the oath should be almost like resigning.

        Judges have a huge range of discretionary power, but they are still required, under the law and under their oaths of office, to apply the law fairly and equally to all and to defend and uphold the Constitution. So if a judge does something dramatic, such as in the example I gave, and it is proved that he did not allow due process to someone before declaring him guilty of a crime, he should just be removed from office. That is pretty clear-cut: Show proof that the person was charged with a crime, that he was allowed to defend himself, and that he was properly convicted. If there is nothing to support any of these things the judge was wrong. And should be removed.

        Some areas would be less clearly defined, but a radical judge would have to be more careful if he knew that his rulings could not only be challenged and overturned, he could lose his job and pension if found guilty of violating his oath.

        Right now our judges and legislators and even our executive government officials such as governors are essentially playing with our money. Take the 9th Circuit Court, the most overturned court in the country. What is the motivation for this court to follow the law? If they are overturned, it’s no skin off their noses. They didn’t have to pay to defend their decisions and they still have their jobs even when the decisions are overturned later. They wreak havoc on the system, they cost millions of dollars in unnecessary litigation as people try to get their worst decisions overturned, they ruin lives, they place unlegislated laws on the books, and it doesn’t matter to them. They have lifetime appointments, they can’t be fired, and nothing they do comes back on them. But put their jobs on the line, let them risk their jobs every time they make a ruling, and they will be a little more careful about how they rule.

        How about IRS officials? Right now, an IRS officer can decide to slap anyone with fines and penalties, and if only a third of these efforts pays off, that’s just gravy. There is no penalty for frivolous penalties. Even if these people don’t always swear oaths of office, make it so they are accountable, and if they are overturned a certain percentage of the time they are fired. If a person wins a challenge to an IRS penalty, that person gets all his legal fees reimbursed plus a hefty settlement for the time and energy it took to fight it.

        As long as these people are playing with our money and our lives, with no downside for them if they cheat, if they lie, even if they are just plain wrong, they will continue to be out of control.

      • jdge1 February 20, 2017 / 1:13 am

        It’s absurd that we allow politicians, judges and certain federal employees to blatantly disregard / disobey the vow they gave for job they accepted. We punish active military personnel with dereliction of duty, dishonorable discharge or court martial in such cases. Should we not hold them to the same standards?

        I totally agree they need to be held accountable, removed from their position along with loss of any pension in most cases, jail time in some cases. I see this as part of the “draining the swamps” efforts, but we need to do it in a way that does not bite us in the back side.

        Part of my concern is in knowing (at least partially) how the left works. Isn’t it one of Alinsky’s rules to hold your opponent to their own rules? But of course they don’t do this without changing the meaning of words or intent of laws, and then apply their impossible to follow interpretations to destroy the opposition. Take for example, the case of Scooter Libby convicted of supposedly “leaking” the identity of Valerie Plame. This so called justice is just one example of the left doing whatever they can to destroy the opposition. I can think of a dozen ways the left could have a field day if everyone who vows to uphold the Constitution and our laws, then found guilty of doing otherwise (by their definition), looses their job. They excel at twisting and distorting the intent of laws and the Constitution. Imagine how they would use every means and determination to “prove” Trump didn’t follow their perception of some portion of the Constitution.

  7. rustybrown2014 February 17, 2017 / 5:52 pm

    Off topic, but I have a great idea for dealing with the refugee crisis: we hold a national referendum on the issue and if it passes we resettle the refugees proportionally to the counties that voted Yea. The counties with the most yea votes get the most refugees. That way all the virtue-signalers could put their money where their mouth is, which is as it should be.

    The left would be dead-set against this idea because it would never pass. If all of these affluent, altruistic liberals had to share their own community’s resources, hospitals, police departments, social/civic services and children’s schools with hordes of un-assimilable third-worlders their support for resettlement would dry up faster than a beer in Bukowski’s prime. It’s much easier to support the importation of refugees if you’re assured they will be plunked down in some small unsuspecting town in red state America that you would never deign to visit anyway.

    Likely it wouldn’t pass even if the proportionality resettlement clause wasn’t in effect. Americans are getting wise to the refugee racket.

    The upside to this would be that we could finally put this folly behind us and focus on more practical, effective and humanitarian solutions to the refugee crisis like building and international coalition to provide camps, resources and security for the refugees in and around their native lands, with the goal of resettlement to their homes once the smoke clears.

    • Retired Spook February 17, 2017 / 9:12 pm

      I like it.

  8. simoneee9 February 17, 2017 / 9:16 pm

    Trump is now tweeting that the free press is the “enemy of the people”, a phrase straight out of Soviet phraseology.

    What a shit-show this administration is proving itself to be. What’s the bet he’s trying to get ahead of the media on some issue coming down the line?

    • Amazona February 18, 2017 / 12:00 am

      Awwww, “Simon”, your tinfoil hat is looking a little tight.

      OF COURSE there is some issue “coming down the line”. The Left is busy as bees, cooking up one faux outrage after another to throw in the trough for eager Lefties like you to slurp up and then regurgitate on blogs like this.

      The problem for your kind is that without fake news and manufactured outrage, you got nothing. You can’t defend the press because it is so obvious that the media do not represent journalism, and are just an echo chamber for the Left, so you can’t argue with what Trump says.

      All you can do is make a fool out of yourself by coming onto blogs like this and trying to sound as if your opinion means anything. You are not the first mindless kneepad Lefty troll we have had here, and we can smell your kind a mile away.

      • jdge1 February 18, 2017 / 9:13 am

        And you believe it’s been settled that Obama was born in Hawaii with the 2 birth certificates he produced, proven to be fake?

        A response to one of several Simoneee9 posts that were deleted. //Moderator

      • Amazona February 18, 2017 / 11:54 am

        There are many reasons the birthplace-of-Obama issue has never been fully resolved, and they all come back to the way he and the Left (another redundancy) CHOSE to handle questions.

        The core truth is that if Obama was truly born in Hawaii, the matter could have been settled within a day or two by signing a document allowing Hawaii to produce a copy of his original birth certificate.

        But look at what we do have.

        We have him producing a CBL—Certificate of Live Birth—which, at the time of his birth, was a document created by the new State of Hawaii for the single and express purpose of proving Hawaiian residency of the parents of a child born out of the state. At the time, a search of Hawaiian state statutes had the phrase “for children born outside the state” as its subtitle—which was removed when the matter got a lot of attention.

        Anyway, to prove that he was born in Hawaii, he produced a document designed only for children born outside the state, a document which according to the law could only allow investigation by the authorities into one single thing—were the parents really residents at the time of the birth? The law did not allow investigation into any other statement on the application, and the application could be filed by anyone—a parent, a grandparent, the child himself.

        There were myriad questions about the CLB, all of which should have been addressed, investigated, and answered fully and honestly, to put the whole thing to bed, though the easiest thing for a Hawaiian native to do would be to simply authorize production of the birth certificate itself.

        No one has come up with a good reason for producing the CLB instead of a birth certificate. In fact, if he was born in Hawaii there was no reason to even file for a CLB, as the CLB produced said he was born in Hawaii and the CLB was designed ONLY for those born outside the state.

        And so on—question after question after question, none of which have ever been answered. Why provide a CLB instead of a birth certificate? Why and when did the State of Hawaii decide that instead of photocopying an actual birth certificate and certifying it, a process that would take less than a minute and assure accuracy in the copy, to instead transfer by hand information from a birth certificate onto another document? And why decide to have that document, at that time, have two opposite and contradictory purposes? (One to establish residency status for children born out of the state and one to establish that a child was born in the state.)

        We were told that it was illegal to produce an actual physical copy of an actual birth certificate, and then people came forward with copies of their birth certificates obtained from the state. Then we were told the person would have to authorize the release of such a copy, and Obama refused to do this. Finally, after many years, years in which any question was greeted with ear-splitting choruses of RACISM !!!!! and so on, a document was produced.

        A sheriff, at the demand of his constituents, instituted an investigation into that document, and it was proved to be a forgery.

        Aside from all this, there is the fact that Obama was routinely identified, even by himself and his wife, as being born in Kenya, until the run for the presidency made that a bad idea, and history was rewritten. His entire educational record is hidden, so natural questions such as “how did a dope-smoking slacker whose own autobiography talked about his poor school performance get into prestigious schools like Columbia and Harvard?” were ignored or met with the wholly predictable shrieks of RACISM !!!!!”. We don’t know how he qualified for admittance, we don’t know what classes he took or what grades he got, we don’t know who paid the freight for these very expensive schools.

        If a book were to be written in which a character’s life contained all these mysteries, blank spots, contradictions, evasions, lies, forgeries, misrepresentations (“a CLB IS a birth certificate !!) and shrill hysterical attacks on anyone who dared ask questions, the plot would be dismissed as too obvious and unbelievable, as no one with the incredible burden of all these questions, mysteries and lies could possibly get away with it.

        In short, there is not one single piece of objective incontrovertible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is a moot point, as his mother was a citizen who may have qualified, in terms of her age and places of residence in the United States for the proscribed periods of time, to convey US citizenship to her son. And in any case, once he was sworn in, he WAS the president, or so the Left howled at us (a concept lacking in their acceptance of Trump as president even though he has been sworn in).

        It doesn’t matter any more unless and until someone truly finds enough evidence to put it all together. It will make a fascinating story, and the only thing that has Dems still trying to make a big deal out of it is that when it comes out they will be smeared with more of their own excrement than even the hacked DNC emails have produced.

    • Cluster February 18, 2017 / 9:37 am

      Much of the current press IS the enemy of the state Simon. They continue to create their own narratives, chase meaningless stories, and blatantly promote a statist agenda, and the time wasted in these pursuits ignore the real issues that are adversely affecting everyday Americans. Issues like poor school performance, inner city violence, flat economic growth, the opiate epidemic, an unsecured border, the record number of people out of the work force, stagnant wages, loss of union jobs, etc. These are much more important stories than whether or not Norstrom continues to carry Ivanka’s apparel line and because of that, the press is obviously pursuing their own agenda and not that of the American people.

      • Retired Spook February 18, 2017 / 11:26 am

        Much of the current press IS the enemy of the state Simon.

        I would disagree, Cluster. I think we have a media that is largely complicit with the “state.” I think Trump’s comment that the media is the enemy of the people is largely correct. We have a media that constantly feeds the people a stream of false information in order to get them to act a certain way.

      • Amazona February 18, 2017 / 12:09 pm

        Good point, Spook. “The State” and “the people” are no longer the same thing.

        The Complicit Agenda Media have always been allies and co-conspirators of The State when it was represented by the Left. We now have a State which is supposed to have had its authority transferred to the Right, but the Left is engaged in a two-pronged strategy of delaying that transfer (while piously declaring how wonderful and peaceful it has been) and sabotaging what will eventually be transferred so it will not function. So we now have a State in limbo, still represented to a great extent by the Left, on one side, and the People, who voted for a change, on the other.

        The Dems are like those people who, when their houses went into foreclosure, stripped them of the electrical wiring, copper pipes, windows and doors, so only a damaged shell remained. They are doing everything they can to destroy the bureaucratic infrastructure, so when agencies don’t function they can point at Trump and squeal about how ineffective his leadership is.

        And we can count on them executing the Dem version of the old definition of “hubris”—-killing both of your parents and then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you are an orphan.

        Fortunately for us, we have a president with experience in dealing with a large company that has many smaller satellite companies, and he understands that if something doesn’t work you just keep hacking off the unproductive parts till it functions again. Nothing would be more rewarding than seeing these recalcitrant agencies rife with saboteurs stripped down to their original charters, with their size slashed by half, and with the saboteurs replaced.

      • Cluster February 18, 2017 / 12:47 pm

        I meant people, not state. Too early and not enough coffee

  9. Retired Spook February 18, 2017 / 11:21 am

    Anyone else notice the latest meme from the media/liberal talking heads/Democrat Party (sorry for the redundancy) — that we’re a month into the new administration, and they haven’t DONE ANYTHING? No tax reform, no healthcare reform, and no infrastructure improvements are the three major areas most often cited. And of course the reasons those haven’t been accomplished are disarray and chaos among the Republican ranks as to how best to tackle them. Now granted, there is some of that, but I think the media are blowing it all out of proportion. I’d much rather see spirited debate about how best to solve problems than hiring an incarcerated felon to write a signature piece of legislation that no one reads, and tell the opposition party that their input is not wanted and their votes are not needed.

    And BTW, Even CNBC acknowledges a long list of promises that Trump has kept and/or started working on. And all in spite of a constant barrage of fake news and a combination of foot dragging and outright obstruction by the Dems.

    I always thought Trumps first 100 days agenda was a bit ambitious, and Speaker Ryan has already indicated they’ll need 200 days to address everything they want to accomplish.

    Now, all that said, I still fully expect Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot. Hopefully this batch will be different, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

    • Amazona February 18, 2017 / 12:00 pm

      If we already had a tax reform bill and an Obamacare repeal bill on the table, much less passed, the shrill squeals of outrage would be that Trump was “reckless” and “not thinking things through”, blah blah blah.

      “No infrastructure improvements” in less than a month in office? Yeah, he should have had at least six bridges and a thousand miles of highway finished by now. I’d love to have him comment in a press conference that of all the things he did inherit, none of them were “shovel ready”.

      200 days to undo much of the damage of 4 years sounds pretty good to me.

      • Retired Spook February 18, 2017 / 12:20 pm

        My hope, when it comes to infrastructure projects, is that Trump uses the same approach he used on the skating rink in Central Park.

        Then and after, Trump described his interest as a pure expression of civic mindedness. All he wanted in return was the rink’s concession rights, which he would, in turn, donate to charity.

        “If Koch doesn’t like this offer,” said Trump, “then let him have the same people who have built it for the last six years do it for the next six years.”

        ………….

        Trump had Wollman Rink up and running by November 1, two months ahead of schedule and $775,000 under budget. Skating stars like Dorothy Hamill, Scott Hamilton, Dick Button, and Aja Zanova-Steindler glided across the ice at the ribbon cutting, with Button declaring the new rink to be like skating on velvet.

  10. Amazona February 18, 2017 / 2:07 pm

    This article purports to be about a Soros connection to the group, but the main thing I got out of it is that the group’s sole intent seems to be to “disrupt” town hall meetings where Republicans are speaking.

    This is just another example of the strategy of the Left. It is not to solve problems, it is not to protect the integrity of the democratic process, it has nothing to do with any of the claims feebly offered up by Leftist mouthpieces. It is simply about disruption of the process, through violent or near-violent means, focused on silencing opposition and the voices of those who are not Leftist puppets.

    When a Republican speaker has to be escorted out of his own town hall meeting because a Leftist group has organized to disrupt it and has been so violent his safety is considered threatened, we have a very accurate picture of the Left.

    Media focused on actual journalism would have been showing video of these mobs and their thuggery and talking about the dangers to democracy represented by such actions and such groups. The fact that so little has been made public about these mini-riots, and the fact that they are organized and funded by Leftist organizations, is another indictment of the Complicit Agenda Media.

    http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/10/indivisible-with-ties-to-george-soros-sows-division-against-trump-gop-lawmakers

    • M. Noonan February 19, 2017 / 2:28 am

      I’ve also read that State-level Democrats are displeased with OFA…probably because (a) they are sucking up campaign money and (b) they are pushing causes which make it hard for State-level Democrats to appeal to swing voters.

      The official word is that the 2018 mid-terms will be rough for House Republicans – the Senate is ok because so many red- and purple-State Democrats are up (while most GOPers are up in solidly red States) that even a bad year for the GOP will work out ok – and that is how it usually goes in the first mid-term of an Administration…but, not always. 2002 and 1934 are exceptions to the rule…and I look at those as being because the “out” party was still the party rejected two years previously. Meaning, that the defeated party made no effort to re-cast itself (in 1938 the GOP and 2006 the Democrats did successfully re-cast themselves and thus scored huge wins in the mid-terms – the Democrats picking up 31 seats in 2006 and the GOP picking up an astonishing 81 seats in 1938). Right now, the Democrats are not only not re-casting themselves, they are doubling-down on what was specifically rejected in 2016 – they still have time to change course, but they’d better get a move on, and I don’t see any indication they want to change.

      I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and figured there are about 14 Democrat House seats which the GOP could reasonably win in 2018 given how strong Trump ran in those districts in 2016 coupled with the districts being either swing or slight GOP-lean districts. If the Democrats keep on as they are and Trump and the GOP successfully nationalize the election, then the GOP might be poised to win 10 or so House seats in 2018…and if the economy is reasonable, as many as 8 to 10 Senate seats (and I do think the economy is poised for a boom – the energy sector is doing well and it is fueling a revival in manufacturing in the United States, couple that with Trump and the GOP’s push to deregulate and reform taxes, and we might be in for a boom such as the country has not seen since we emerged from the recession of 1981. Trump might wind up the luckiest man who ever lived – first in getting himself elected against all odds, then striking it rich (as it were) with an economic boom. Democrats better get their stuff in one sock pretty quick or they are going to be out for quite a while.

      • Amazona February 19, 2017 / 3:11 pm

        Here I go again, getting back to the idea of Middle America Democrats not having the same agenda as the hard Left. Actually, I don’t think Middle America Democrats have much of an agenda at all, other than allowing themselves to be stirred up and a little scared about the Right due to extensive hard-Left propaganda. But these are still people who stand up for the national anthem, don’t like seeing the flag burned, and at least in general principle believe in the Constitution even if they aren’t quite sure what it says. They might pay lip service to a lot of Leftist themes, but when it comes right down to it they don’t want 6-year-old Sally in a bathroom stall next to a lumberjack, or Bobby in a Scout troop with a flamboyantly gay troop leader and a couple of scouts who were born girls. These are the crossovers who voted for Trump, and these are the people who were happy to see the “peaceful transition” of power because it let them feel good about their party.

        Start talking about the OFA and Obama putting together a shadow government, and the Dems will lose these people. They are already turned off by a lot of the antics of the Women’s March, and they don’t like mobs, even though most of them still think it was Trumpers who were the mobs.

        Surely we have some Social Media warriors who can flood YouTube and Facebook with videos of Leftist mobs shutting down town halls. Surely we can find ways to get out the same stuff linked here, with Leftists coming right out and talking about strategies not to solve problems but just to shut down normal people who want to ask questions of their representatives.

        We’re talking about a lot of middle management types here, who can imagine what it would be like to have employees walk out, or worse yet simply sabotage their companies. Whether we are talking businesses or local organizations, these are the people who can see the chaos that would ensue if nurses were to stage slowdowns because they didn’t like the new management of the nursing home, or how a business could be destroyed if its employees worked to bring it down.

        It always comes down to communication, messaging, and getting the information out there.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s