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.

The Inditments should have been Leaked

The Trump indictments about mishandling classified material should have been classified as Ultra top-secret and then leaked to the New York Times. The source would remain anonymous. This person is not authorized to mishandle these top-secret documents about mishandling top-secret documents. You see, the undercover source leaked the documents to an undercover reporter who was under the same cover and in the same bed. As part of the resulting brouhaha, dotGov throws a big investigation to find the culprit who's not authorized to mishandle the classified material about mishandling classified material. The years-long investigation will go nowhere because why would it. Meanwhile, the New York Times will editorialize about how Trump mishandled documents he had previously declassified and kept locked up.

Of course, some secrets should be kept secret. For instance, the secret that Joe Biden is corrupt. This is purely a "need to know," and only the people actually paying the bribes (and enabling officials and journalists) need to know. So when President Trump's Ultra top-secret phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky -- where Biden's corruption was touched on -- was leaked by someone not authorized to leak it, Trump was impeached. Obviously, Trump had no "need to know" of Biden's corruption. In any case, it was the best five-million Ukraine ever spent.  It's pay to play -- with HIMARS.

When Biden announced his Presidential bid not long after Trump took office, I said it was meant to keep corruption indictments at bay.  In 2017 even the mainstream media was reporting on his corruption as Vice President. Declaring his candidacy as the Democratic Party hopeful was a way to shut them up and get the "respected media" to actively suppress a story that would cast the entire Democratic party in a bad light. So I don't think Dr. Jill will allow Biden to gracefully bow out after one term and give up this anti-indictment superpower.

How Reagan Ruined Everything

Fast-talking lawyer Leeja Miller makes the case against Ronnie. It's not the massive concentration of power in Washington D.C. that's the problem: it's the partial slowdown to that process caused by RR. It reminds me of how the Democrats successfully ran against Herbert Hoover for fifty years. Trying the same trick with Reagan might not work as well.

Lawyers concentrate on winning the argument rather than solving the problem, because by winning the argument they have solved the problem -- their problem, which is winning the argument. Unfortunately, despite all the argument-winning, the crisis persists -- an underfunded and underpowered government sector.

I remember when the Federal government had to function on a meager nine-hundred billion dollars a year -- no wonder it couldn't make everything affordable in a sustainable manner! It was argued that by increasing that amount to a mere one trillion (a "more" that actually sounds like "less") we would solve this persistent funding shortfall. But did it? No! Now some people actually argue that seven trillion a year should be enough (that's 7,000 billion dollars). Really? With so much persistent want in the country (especially among lawyers and lobbyists), how will that solve the problem? To hell with trickle-down! I'm for tinkle-upon economics! Who doesn't want to feel that warm flow of federal dollars running down their back?