If You Can't Fool Him Twice, Lock Him Up.

Candidate Donald Trump now talks of Firing the "Deep State"-- that network of self-serving, unelected officials and their cronies. That might explain why they want him slapped into a Supermax cell.

The President can appoint about 4,000 positions and in 2017 President Trump should have replaced all of them on Day One. He didn't and was still getting stabbed in the back by people who worked for him two years later. Republican Presidents have a bad habit of leaving Democrat appointments in place.

President Obama, his predecessor, was an ideological leftist who appointed ideological leftists who would, themselves, appoint ideological leftists. They, in turn, network with their fellows in and out of government (Wallstreet, Foundations, Universities, Contractors, Lawyer-Lobbyists, Journalists, and on and on). This maze of special-interest groups forms what I call "The Crony Class" -- those who want to control their fellow citizens (and benefit from that control) through their control of Washington DC. They possess a "Crony Class Consciousness."

Like Lois Lerner (who "slow-walked" tax-exempt status for right-leaning groups in 2012) and the DOJ lawyers currently targeting Trump and his supporters, those with Crony Class Consciousness don't need to be instructed in what to do and their actions come with prepackaged rationalizations. They are building a better future free of racism and such. True patriotism is loyalty to that better future. They are responsible for that better future, not the horrible past or the messy present. Current deficiencies are on the normies who are in need of re-education.

Meanwhile, the Crony Class takes care of its own. Lori Lightfoot, the failed Chicago Mayor, landed a teaching gig at Harvard upon leaving office.

Favorable Indictments

Peter Zeihan asks: How Will Donald Trump's New Indictment(s) Impact the Election?

Peter thinks the various indictments will not prevent The Donald from getting the nomination but will prevent the Republicans from winning in 2024 because "swing voters" will swing away. This parallels the thinking from 2015. The DC crowd thought they could spend a lot of time attacking The Donald and he would get the nomination because of their attacks (even they know they are disliked). They figured they would clobber him among the swing voters in 2016, who hate them so much less. It didn't quite work out that way.

In 2020, through a combination of Covid Lockdowns, NGO-sponsored riots about race, Helicopter Money and Helicopter Ballots, the DC establishment beat The Donald. Still, he got 10 million more votes than he got in 2016. 

Riots and Lockdowns are off the table for 2024 because such systematic destruction will blow back on Biden.  Helicopter money will likely cause double-digit inflation. In other presentations, Peter Zeihan says that poor grain harvest will increase food prices. Will higher food prices affect the ballot harvest?

It seems Joe Biden got millions from Ukraine when he was V.P., which is why they impeached Donald Trump (the impeachment involved the "good" mishandling of classified material on the part of DC insiders). The money was well spent on Ukraine's part (it's pay to play with HIMARS) but makes Joe's motives for supporting them to the hilt less than pure. I suppose he could say, "I took a lot of money from the Chinese but look how I'm screwing with them!" Vote for Joe, he won't stay bought and if he does, they'll indict Trump.

In 1988 I thought Joe might make a good president and then he stole the biography of the UK Labour Party Leader (Neil Kinnock, I believe it was). I thought it a bad choice of biographies to steal. Of course, in 1992 Jerry Brown, the Progressive California governor, supported a 13 percent flat Federal Income Tax (including the Social Security tax) so...people change (or grow, in the case of a Progressive).

During his first term, the DC crowd actively worked to frame Donald Trump as a Russian spy, the type of thing horrible people do. DC is full of awful people. It attracts manipulative, self-dealing sociopaths -- and that's just the journalists. I don't expect it to improve. But I'll vote for The Donald anyways.

Choose one from each group

Reagan, for better or worse — I’d say for worse, but that’s another discussion — brought a lot of change. He ran as an unabashed conservative, with a clear ideological agenda.

Thus writes Paul Krugman of the New York Times, as he wondered if Barack Obama is a Ronald Reagan. Now at what point in the campaign did we know Reagan was Reagan and what being Reagan meant? And here Sen. Obama has the nomination in hand and we don't even know if Obama is Obama. And we sure don't know what it means to be an Obama.

Mr. Krugman continues his clue search as he expands the comparison to Bill Clinton:

So whom does Mr. Obama resemble more? At this point, he’s definitely looking Clintonesque...Like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama portrays himself as transcending traditional divides. Near the end of last week’s “unity” event with Hillary Clinton, he declared that “the choice in this election is not between left or right, it’s not between liberal or conservative, it’s between the past and the future.” Oh-kay.

Decades ago I lived in North Beach in San Fransisco where a lot Italian restaurants ran lunch specials. For $2.50 you could choose what you liked from a group of appetizers; choose one from a group of main courses; choose from a group of side dishes and deserts and beverages. And actually put together quite an inexpensive feast.

What we have here is the "choose one from each group" candidate. For each issue he takes three positions. The position that most excites you is the one he holds. The other two are necessary political panders he has to make to get elected. He does this -- sacrifices his integrity -- so he can put your solutions into practice. Some might call him a politician. He will endure this for you. And he will work hard (never worked harder!) to do right by you. Wait. In fact, wait some more.

So he is neither Clinton nor is he Reagan. He is the man who, once elected, will have a mandate to do whatever he wants. Because the Media will tell us so. After all, the left has already made its choice. If their every choice is not yours, you did not choose wisely.

Whatch that racism, racist!

After noting that one in five voters in the West Virginia Primary took race into consideration, Kenneth P. Vogel and Carrie Budoff Brown write in The Politico (Five things to watch in Kentucky):

And though Kentucky voters may also factor race into their votes, they also might be more reluctant to admit it to exit pollsters, said Laurie Rhodebeck, an associate political science professor at the University of Louisville.

“Voters get a little prickly here if you say race” drove their choice, she said. “They’ll say, ‘It’s more that we’re concerned about his church ties or his lack of military experience or that he seems so young and untested.’ Those may be socially acceptable ways of saying they’re uncomfortable with a black candidate.”

OK. And what are the Socially Acceptable ways of saying he's unqualified? Let me think. I guess there are none. Silly me.

It is interesting to see what Liberals think of their own voters. Are you a racist hick Democrat -- even more of a racist than you are a sexist? Or are you an elvan, Rivindale, temperate rain forest dwelling, Democrat? And where do you shop?

(via Pajamas Media)

Them that Are Suck-up-ceptible to Diplomacy

Part of being a bureaucrat is identifying the real enemy.

Wretchard at the Belmont Club discusses one Thomas "give Bush the" Fingar, the very model of the modern and methodical (and very much a prodigal) "impartial intelligence analyst." He's the fellow responsible for the NIE that determined Iran was no longer pursuing Nukes (as discussed in an LA Times piece). He claimed to be creating a "Just the facts, no matter where they lead" environment. They don't promote policy positions over at his place, you see. From the LA Times:

The draft concluded that Tehran was still pursuing a nuclear bomb, a finding that echoed previous assessments and would have bolstered Bush administration hawks. Then, just weeks before the report was to be delivered to the White House, new intelligence surfaced indicating that Tehran's nuclear weapons work had stopped.

New intelligence, eh? So you toss out the first report and quickly whip up a second one. No reason to suspect an ulterior motive there.

But did Mr. Fingar call the Iranians evil, thus compromising his "objectivity"? Let's see. It does sound like he is complaining.

"The unhappiness with the finding -- namely that the evil Iranians might be susceptible to diplomacy -- adroitly turned into an ad hominem assault," Fingar said.

Hmm. Or is that the clever use of irony by Mr. Fingar? Maybe the Iranians -- who've done him no harm -- are not the evil ones; maybe it is the unhappy ones, those who issue ad hominem assaults, who are evil. Perhaps he uses Sarcasm. Which means the Iranians, far from being evil, are susceptible to diplomacy. But this sounds like he is promoting a policy position through the adroit use of sarcasm. Is that allowed? Perhaps we should think of Mr. Fingar as the Shadow National Security Advisor.

Mr. Fingar sounds like a typical left intellectual. They don't have policy preferences, just superior insight and knowledge. They are "the reality based community" because they can make two plus two equal their preferred sum simply by using a clever retort and changing the subject.

Is Mr. Fingar advising the Obama campaign? We'll find out when he's fired for some politically off the mark remark. There will be no whining as he departs. And he certainly will not call Barak Obama a politician.

And now, allow me to flash forward: a year, more or less. I expect less.

In search of peace, President Obama goes to Tehran and says "You had me at 'screw you!'" The Mullahs coax him to wear his new gift: a diamond studded, "Death to America," lapel pin. Does he refuse to wear it because of the empty symbolism involved? Or does he put it on in the furtherance of world peace, the way he would wear any other bit of native costume?

He'll offer them the Zero option: "We'll gladly give up our 12,000 nukes today if you give up yours -- how many you guys got anyways? -- on Tuesday."

They say they will consider this if we give up our missile defense first, as a sign of good faith. He'll say, "Too late, already done that. What else can we do to show our good faith?" They will suggest we withdraw from Iraq. He'll say "Operation skedaddle is already in skedaddle mode. Sorry. Come up with something else." They'll say, give us time to think and we'll make a list. He'll say, can I make suggestions? They'll say, why not?

And he'll think, I cut my teeth facing down US auto executives, US Oil Companies, and US Presidents. These guys are nothing.