Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Fake News?

On January 26 The Washington Post's Josh Rogin wrote this,

"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era." (Emphasis added)

Yikes! What a catastrophe. Well, no, not quite a catastrophe, more like a big fat nothing burger. Just more of the same exaggeration, hysteria and misleading nonsense that Trump has inspired in the left.

Here, courtesy of Yousef Munayyer is the State Department's organizational chart:
Embedded image

The names circled in yellow are those who resigned. Looks like there are one or two high ranking State Department officials left, doesn't it?

"Whether Kennedy left on his own volition or was pushed out by the incoming Trump team is a matter of dispute inside the department." Really?

"The State Department said that the four officials had submitted their resignations at the start of the new administration, as is standard practice with all political appointees throughout the executive branch of the government."

Actually, this is just a reporter covering his rear. All political appointees tender their resignations at the end of a presidential term. Whether and when those resignations are accepted is a decision left up to the administration. The resignations were accepted. Routine, unless a Republican is President. In that case it is an unprecedented catastrophe.

"“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry.


If these people had been doing their jobs properly they should have very well trained subordinates ready to step up. Shouldn't they?

The press release below explains the reality which is, business as usual. Do not take at face value a word you read about Republicans in the Washington Post or New York Times. Ever.

About That Travel "Ban"

As I read all the hysteria regarding the temporary ban on US entry for people (mostly Muslim) from seven countries with serious Islamic terror issues, I notice that those objecting most loudly are actually missing the point.

Some, like Charles C.W. Cooke, a writer at National Review, are green card holders. I think he is from England (I can't find the link to his piece on the subject, sorry.) He describes the excruciating process one must follow to get a green card. He is correct. I remember it well even though I went through it over thirty years ago.

The implication of his piece is that green card holders have been thoroughly vetted and enough is enough.

Here is the problem as I see it. The people being targeted are not from England or Canada (like me) but from wildly unstable places with very uncertain record keeping regimes and notoriously corrupt governments. Our government has, in my opinion, no credibility on the subject of the admission of Muslims to this country.

I am sure the victims of the Boston Bombers and the San Bernadino shooter don't find the government credible. I know I don't. Trump made it plain during the campaign that he certainly doesn't. Those events, among others, would never have happened had the vetting agencies done their jobs in any competent way. People died, people were physically maimed for life. I can't imagine the psychological impact of having been a survivor of such catastrophes.

This is a temporary pause to fix our systems. That it temporarily inconveniences some people is unfortunate. One thing is certain. The one or two or three people coming here with bad intentions will not be here anytime soon. I never did agree with Obama's suggestion that we can absorb a few hits in the interest of political correctness, as he wanders about in armored cars surrounded by heavily armed people dedicated to his survival. What a pompous coward.

There are a lot of people complaining that the roll out of the policy was botched. Maybe, I don't know. I find I don't actually "hear" most of the critics, the din is so constant and loud.

Of course, that may just be exactly what Trump had in mind.

Scott Adams the creator of Dilbert, among other things, has demonstrated great insight into Trump's thinking over the last 2 years or so. I invite you to read this.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Good Job Mr. President

Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I have written before about my reluctant vote for him and subsequent approval of his appointments.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he appears to have meant what he said all through the campaign and then during the post-election period.

He has barged into the lions' den and informed the lions that they are being evicted, he, having already evicted both of America's political dynasties.

"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today 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 American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.

Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day. This is your celebration.

And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people."

I did not  expect anything so aggressive. Obama looked as though he was trying not to throw up when congratulating Mr. Trump after the speech. Everything in the speech was a complete repudiation of him and his policies. Bill Clinton looked furious.

I thought it particularly comical when the camera showed Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell smiling, clapping and nodding vigorously. They appear not to understand that they are part of the problem and will either acquiesce to the new regime or be driven from office.

The pitchforks have been delivered, let the stable cleaning begin.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Other People's Money

Every weekday I receive Jim Geraghty's National Review "Morning Jolt" via email.

Today's version examines some of our Obama experiences. He includes this:

"As Matthew Fleischer wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 2013, “Most young, middle-class Americans I know are happy that millions of previously uninsured people will receive free or heavily subsidized insurance under the Affordable Care Act. We just didn’t realize that, unless we had health insurance at work, we’d be the ones paying for it.”"

The never ending lamentation of the left. More stuff for everyone! Find someone else to pay for it!

Lefty's are always very generous...with other people's money.

Monday, January 16, 2017


I have written often of my complete disrespect for the soon to be ex-President.

His thin skinned narcissism, disdainful attitude, apparent lack of any knowledge of history and tenuous relationship with the truth are legendary. His legacy will consist simply of his betrayal of our allies and his serial lies to the American public. Well, his enabling of a nuclear Iran might figure in there as well if the new administration and Israel are unable to effectively counter his egregious policy.

I had written last summer of my concern that there would be no Presidential election in 2016. Happily I was wrong.  I remain concerned that the inauguration may still be postponed by some artful maneuvre on Obama's part, but the concern is a small one.

What I am more concerned about is that his decision to live in Washington post-presidency actually means that he intends to run a shadow government in opposition to the Trump Administration.

In the parliamentary political system that dominates the countries that were part of the British Empire, the "loyal opposition" appoints members of their party(s) as a "shadow cabinet" whose members are tasked to examine and critique the Government Ministers of each department.

We have a history of relatively quiet (at least for a respectable period of time) ex-Presidents. It is something of a tradition. Of course we have a lot of traditions that Obama actively disrespects. The Rule of Law, for example.

How many unlawful orders did Obama issue with respect to illegal immigration? I don't know. One is enough to demonstrate the point.

How many times did he amend the Obamacare act without benefit of Congressional action? I don't know. At least five.

The rule of law is, in my view, the most fundamental tradition of the United States. A President with no respect for it is a serious problem. Normalizing that lack of respect produces very predictable results. Sanctuary cities anyone? Check. A weaponized IRS. Check, got that too. A Justice Department whose chief meets secretly with the husband (a former President himself, found guilty of perjury) of a woman under investigation by the FBI? Check.

Convening a shadow government to relentlessly attack his successor will be no great surprise coming from Obama. A truly awful American with no respect for anything or anybody but himself.

Sunday, January 15, 2017


Obama's betrayal of the people of Cuba in favor of their dictators is business as usual for him as we all know, to our profound regret. What did he get for America in exchange for abandoning the Cubans stuck on that prison island? Nothing, as far as I can tell. About the same as he got from Iran for releasing them from their sanctions regime. Well to be fair, he seems to think that this betrayal of America, Israel and the entire Middle East, will come to be viewed as a great diplomatic triumph, burnishing his "legacy". Right.

In his usual manner, he did though, accomplish something for himself:

"The decision, formalized in a joint statement issued by both governments Thursday, comes as Obama tries to cement his historic opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba and one week before President-elect Donald Trump takes office."

Yes, no problem sentencing Cubans living in that giant prison to life there, he has "cemented his historic opening...". A complete disgrace.

Of course, giving everything away for nothing is Obama and his administration's preferred negotiating strategy. In fact, they are also willing to give away things that belong to others, including their lives: