Monday, November 25, 2019


The Bogus Mantle of “Career Public Servant”

In the latest attempt by America’s Democomm/socialist party to remove the elected president, a parade of individuals billed as “witnesses,” were given the national spotlight, though few of them “witnessed” anything. During the attempt to pass off this elite clique' appraisals as a source of wisdom and goodness, an impressive moniker was often used, ... “career public servant.”

While there are bureaucrats and government functionaries that perform their jobs with little controversy or fanfare, it’s become a common defense of government overreach and incompetence to praise “public servants” for the simple act of scoring a well-paying and relatively prestigious job. Thus, a minion in the rusted wheel of government is compared to a fire fighter rushing into a burning building. The ultimate stretch in this absurd misnomer occurs when a politician is referred to as a “public servant.” It’s not as if most of them don’t leave their “service” with a vastly augmented bank account and followup careers as lobbyists or cable news “contributors.” Candidate Joe Biden is regularly praised for his decades of “public service.” What utter BS.

In the impeachment hearings over the past week, partisan media hacks and their brethren continually lauded the noble altruism and goodness of “career public servants” who have scored high-paying and prestigious jobs directing American foreign policy. Of course their job isn’t to direct policy at all but to carry out the wishes of an elected president. I have no doubt that there are many worthy staff members from America’s State Department who perform their responsibilities flawlessly and carry out their responsibilities out of a genuine desire to “do good” but I’m not so certain that monitoring and critiquing the president’s phone calls is in their job description — if they are entrenched partisans from a prior administration even less so.

There are very few people who are purely altruistic in their choice of career goals. Certainly many would like to see “helping people” in their job description but it’s hardly the first choice of how one gains an income. For most of us, adequate income and job conditions are reasonable targets for a satisfactory livelihood. If one can go a step further and add perks and prestige, all the better. But, pretending that one is performing a noble act of kindness by scoring a lucrative position in government is a bit over the top in the government scam-olympics.

At the impeachment “inquiries” one of the so-called witnesses (that the Democrat chairman would allow) was the now famous Alexander Vindman. Almost comically, he arrived in full dress uniform with medals blazing. Obviously military service outranks (no pun intended) a mere academic career as bonafide service but, the implication that his career choice somehow legitimized his worldview is absolute nonsense. The fact that his usual work attire is a conventional suit affords further skepticism to his posturing. His personal view of one phone call between the president and a foreign leader is meaningless in spite of his uniform or willingness to risk his life on a battlefield. The media, of course wasn’t so enamored by the uniforms of Oliver North, General Petraeus, or Michael Flynn. Before Petraeus was found guilty of anything, left wing groups pinned him with the moniker, “General Betray-us.” But, now we have a heroic “public servant” who agrees that “orange man” is “bad.”

The Democrats and establishment media have begun a horrible precedent by pretending it’s legitimate to literally monitor a president’s every conversation and action, insuring it complies with the standards of (unelected) “career public servants.” While clear and obvious crimes have occurred under previous presidents, all presidents at one time or another in the normal conduct of their duties have committed what are technically minor “crimes.” The pervasive go-to argument of “obstruction of justice” is one of those catch-all terms that could be applied to a host of actions carried out by virtually every chief executive. In this president’s case, the charge is made every time he defends himself from unfounded accusations. In the recent Trump / Ukraine example the tenuous claims of wrong-doing are absurd. Nothing he’s been accused of even happened. There was no “pressure,” no hoped-for Ukrainian actions delivered, and no money earmarked to them was withheld in the end. While the entire phone conversation offers some fun exercises for conjecture by legal gymnasts, none of it can stand as worthy of impeaching a president. Add to this the nonsense of Ivy League clowns pulled from the woodwork of government offices and testifying as to how they feel about a guy that most of them hated to begin with and what do you have? Just another group of partisans whining over their disappointment that queen Hillary lost an election.

So why is such honor directed at the pseudo-intellectuals of government agencies? Supposedly they’re smart but, there are a variety of intellectual styles. It could accurately be argued that the witty and successful entrepreneur with a high school education is as smart as the bookish Ivy League intellectual. George Bush was derided by the media and his political opponents as being “incurious” and lacking the scholarly disposition that the left so admires. Yet, he had been a fighter pilot...and, president of the United States — both requiring some intellectual fortitude. Donald Trump is a successful real estate developer and builder, not to mention successful television personality. He defeated several popular establishment political figures and became president of the United States. As president he quickly turned the lackluster American economy into one of unprecedented vitality. Yet, we are supposed to believe that, unlike “career public servants,” he is “stupid” because of botched spelling errors on social media (none of us have done that). No doubt he never memorized the capitols of Sub-Saharan countries or read Canterbury tales. Donald Trump would no doubt fail to establish the level of scholarship that Fiona Hill has been noted for but, conversely, I doubt that she would have the skill or instinctual awareness — intelligence— to successfully run a multi-billion dollar real estate empire...or the office of President of the United States.

This touches on the issue of what Eric Hoffer noted as the perennial dispute between “the [person] of action” vs. “the [person] of ideas.” One could simplify the analysis and simply refer to a conflict between business persons and intellectuals. The business mentality is directed toward practical results. The intellectual and their lightweight spawn in journalism and the arts lives in a world of theory and idealism. Pragmatism seldom causes mass destruction or dystopia. Idealism has left the pages of history soaked in blood and suffering. The world would be a better place if the ideologues of the world stuck to publishing their views in journals and directing their minds to creative pursuits.

In some ways the current divide is one of blue-collar vs. a strain of academic white collar (or maybe turtleneck sweater). I and many people I know who share my worldview coincidently share a blue collar upbringing. The friends I’ve had who hold beliefs more in line with current “progressive” thought have inevitably been from a more refined economic strata and I’d dare say, a more pampered background. Marx referred to the blue collar “working class” types who failed to follow the socialist program as the “Lumpen Proletariat.” Little has changed today, where the same smug arrogance is directed at those who just don’t see the wisdom in their intellectual betters’ plans on how to run the world.

Back to the current newsworthy characters in “public service.” Who are these clowns? People who aced their SATs, shook the right hands at Washington dinner parties, wrote some articles that no one read, and have been on the cutting edge of the plot to impose world government by a social planning elite (them). Bow down lowly peasant before the grandiosity of your betters.

In the end, the current divide in political thought is not one that sides can defend based on their supposed intellectual rigor. I can’t “prove” that I should have a high degree of personal freedom any more than a statist can “prove” that I should obey a powerful government authority. The intellectual credentials of one making such arguments really has little value. A lack of education or literacy in a backwoods countryman hardly nullifies the value of his or her desire to be free.

By definition a “public servant” should Serve the public (duh!). Using their pampered status as a means to assist in the imposition of statist authority over a free people is hardly an act of “service.” We can admire those who have attained status in their careers in government but to call them true servants we should expect them to restrict their actions to service and not merely be parasites with a will to power and a gripe with the current commander and chief.

Friday, November 22, 2019


Options in the Socialist Bureau-state

I believe I’ve linked to the following video once before rather long ago. It’s worthy of repeating. This old Television commercial for Wendy’s hamburgers is still the best depiction of the socialist template and its inability to offer anything beyond drab conformity and ugliness.

Monday, November 18, 2019


High Barr Standards

This talk by the current Attourney General, William Barr, is brilliant on many levels.

The now famous Trump Boomerang effect is about to present its greatest expression of poetic justice upon those who have sought to undo the results of a presidential election.

Two major investigations will soon be concluded looking into the events surrounding deep state attempts to undermine the election of 2016. By now it is clear that the CIA, FBI, and State Department, working, in accordance with the Democratic party, the Obama administration, and establishment media, sought to actively prevent Donald Trump from being elected and afterward sought to lay the groundwork to have him removed from office. These investigations will lay out the legal proof of these conspiracies and likely result in some serious convictions.

Preemptive attempts to tarnish Barr’s image have already been set in motion. To the clapping seals in comedy show audiences, Barr is merely a dupe of Donald Trump’s — imaginary — corruptions. Far from it.

This guy is brilliant. The linked video here shows him to be a knowledgable student of history and constitutional law and a stable, wise, and practical voice of reason. There are several points in the talk that are profoundly insightful.

In our rare times we are blessed with some rare public figures to battle the scheming minions of progressive authoritarianism. Who does their side have?....Adam Schiff — laughable.

Sunday, November 17, 2019


Adam Schiff Applies a New Socialist Standard for Justice

Friday, November 15, 2019


Facinating speculations

Thursday, November 14, 2019


A Cynic’s View of War

War is bad ...well, yeah. War is up there with racism and slavery as a topic to burnish one’s credentials for being opposed to the bad things that humans are capable of. I’m opposed to plagues and pandemics. Does that make me a good person? Am I on the “right side of history?”

I read somewhere recently that an opinion poll saw Donald Trump as the greatest threat to world peace. I wasn’t very impressed as I have seen similar polls before relating to George Bush and Ronald Reagan. In each instance the contemplative public apparently overlooked people like the Kims of North Korea and several other militant dictatorships scattered around the globe. No, the greatest threat to world peace is always the evil hegemon, primed and ready to open another theme park and fast food chain. America is often chastised for seeking the spread of Starbucks franchises around the world - the imperialism of flavorful coffee in a pleasant atmosphere. The former Soviet Union and it clones sought to spread — and the clones continue to seek the spread of — the miserable dictatorship franchise around the world (minus flavorful coffee and pleasant atmosphere).

Barack Obama actually thought that sneaking pallets of cash to the Mullahs of Iran would reduce the expansion of nuclear weapons in the world (for ten years). When a country publicly proclaims its desire to initiate a first strike and “wipe [another nation] off the map” I tend to view them as a great “obstacle to world peace.” It’s probably also reasonable to see anyone who bows to their behavior as an obstacle to world peace as well.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that, more often than not, the very policies that promote a strong military in a free society seem to be rather effective in reining in more bellicose countries. There are also more than a few examples of excessive idealism offering the green light to the real war-mongers of the world.

War and peace are an inseparable dynamic. There is nothing in the universe that does not interact with levels of harmony and dissonance. A hurricane is a war between hot and cold air. The more refined social templates that humans possess are still bound by degrees of harmony and discord in their interactions with others. It’s certainly practical to avoid the conflict that leads to mass-destruction, wanton violence, and grotesque physical harm but peace at all cost is often a very high cost and doesn’t necessarily guarantee peace in the end anyway.

Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters sings in his lyrics about how the British government “took my daddy from me” overlooking the fact that Adolf Hitler was a key player in taking his daddy from him. Even when you’re on defense you are still at war and only the most weak-minded of idealists will argue the virtues of not defending one’s self, one’s family, and one’s society from external violence. Throwing flowers at the enemy loses its effectiveness...immediately. Another singer lost in the clouds, Sting, once sang that “The Russians love their children too.” Many people no doubt thought this was a profound testament to the virtues of not recognizing formidable threats (“Hey! They’re just like us!”). No doubt the Russians in the former Soviet Union did indeed love their children but their government was an unelected totalitarian monster that abused it’s own citizens as well as sought to spread it’s coercive authority across the globe. It put up a good fight against Nazi Germany but it’s often forgotten that initially it was allied with Nazi Germany to plunder the innocent citizens of Poland.

I’m always struck by the images one sees in nature specials where a Gazelle tries to outrun a lion but ends up in its teeth. I wish the Gazelle had a gun. Not because I want to see war between lions and gazelles but I think Gazelles should be better prepared to defend themselves from the inevitable actions of predators.

War is stupid, wasteful, unproductive, and horrible. Humans are gifted with the capacity to contemplate their circumstance and on some occasions even act with the refined sense to resist the negative attributes of a biological inheritance.

War is bad...but, keep your military on alert, just in case.

Friday, November 08, 2019


The name of the deep state establishment Democrat leftist operative pretending to be a "whistleblower" is "ERIC CIARAMELLA"


Thursday, November 07, 2019


Trump in Context

A very insightful — the best I’ve seen — talk by Victor Davis Hanson regarding Donald Trump as a unique and positive phenomena. (The actual talk begins at the 6:50 point in the video).

Tuesday, November 05, 2019


Thermidorian Reaction

I’m going to go out on a limb and make a prediction. Up until recently I thought the left had this chapter of history in the bag. They’ve certainly conned a generation or two into thinking that America is the worst thing going and that redemption can only occur when the bureau class is given their rightful place on the throne of governance. Recently I’ve had to consider another possible outcome on the turbulence of our times. Of course any prediction by anyone is subject to the laws of a final established reality (meaning, I could be wrong).

My usual concern is with just how effective the Jacobin rabble could become in imposing their dystopian nightmare upon us. The Democrat platforms are all variations on how they will curtail liberty and establish a powerful Washington command post to compel citizens to obedience. Of course this is transparently disguised as, “we will give you...”

Amazingly, with virtually nothing honest or accurate to go on, America’s Democomm party has been successful in furthering their attempted coup d' ètat while sane voices do little beyond stating their complaints on cable television.

Conservatives have been remarkably passive in accepting a perpetual onslaught of vicious attack. Conservative speech is stifled on college campuses and in social media. Wearing a hat with a benign slogan — Make America Great Again— can expose one to derision or even serious injury. Daily, values in support of limited constitutional government and traditional cultural values are spun by propaganda venues everywhere as attributes of “racism,” “white supremacy,” and other absurd monikers completely divorced from reality.

To be sure, conservatives (and libertarians) do not like the current political course of events but what I think could ultimately tip the scales in the other direction is a justified reaction to the extreme assault on traditional culture.

What had been a reasonable defense for alternate lifestyles has morphed into bizarre support for literally imposing niche agendas on the public. One must not only be “tolerant” (a sane, reasonable, and just position) but one must embrace every stupid excess of contemporary hedonism and “lifestyle choice.” Of course the same honors are not bestowed upon traditional family life or religious belief.

Where a clear line has been breeched is the increasing attempts to impose transgender “issues” on children in public schools. While supporting tolerance, it may be valid to note that we are talking about a tiny niche of society — less than 1% of the population. To perceive our environment as Hollywood and academia would have it, you’d think that a huge percent of our population embraces novel variations from what has been the norm in most societies for Millenia.

To debate issues regarding the role of the state in economics is, in spite of the passions aroused, largely an intellectual exercise. Forcing people to use special pronouns for an aggrieved victim du jour under threat of fine or jail strikes at a more visceral debate. Likewise for forcing kids to hide their personal religious values while simultaneously forcing them to recite passages from a politically correct favored religion.

While they may be aberrations sprung from the empty heads of some coastal partisans, crazy ideas like “drag queen story hour” for kindergarten-age children will certainly give a respectable parent reason to want the breaks put on “the revolution.” Likewise, telling kids that they might be the opposite gender and should consider changing their status may seem “inclusive” for the sliver of our population that ennobles such things, but most parents are not likely to favor having such nonsense forced upon their families.

By the end of Obama’s presidency, many people had had enough of the progressive march into cultural Marxism. Donald Trump was elected because the heartland is not “progressive” — they’re sane. They simply want to be successful, potentially prosperous, and happy. The voters’ attempts to apply the breaks to the Democrat’s faux revolution (power grab) was a reasonable reaction to too much history happening too fast. While tax policy can get some people riled up, the progressive agenda is ultimately about remaking society and making their agendas mandatory under threat of penalty. That’s not just an issue to debate. It’s cause for real — kinetic — resistance.

Millions of voters in the last presidential election sought a reasonable roll-back of the punitive and power-grabbing template of the left. Now, the one chance to salvage their civilization as they knew it is being undermined and attacked through flagrant dishonest banana republic tactics.

What’s a decent person to do?....guess.

We’re on an edge. Anything could happen but there’s a good chance that a reaction, driven by the instinctual response to assaults on stable traditional society, will come with suddenness and intensity.

Trump and his conservative base has had the back of law enforcement and the military. We know who they are likely to side with. Add to that the motorcycle gangs, veterans, farmers, and factory workers vs. the latte-sipping suppies (socialist yuppies) who have sought to rule society.

As one who favors open society, I wouldn’t be happy with the outcome of a “right wing” reaction. First of all, in this sense “right wing” could possibly lead to a strain of collectivist nationalism — national socialism. Stalin and Hitler just represented different strains of the authoritarian collectivist mission and neither style of governance would be a preferable option. A right wing reaction would, in all likelihood, not be “classical liberalism” (the more accurate expression of “right wing”). “For every action, an equal and opposite reaction.” As I’ve noted many times before, the laws of physics can tell us much as to how social events unfold. When the relatively passive right finally responds to the nonsense they’ve been subjected to over the last several years, they will likely do so with speed and intensity.

I’ve often expressed my concern that the progressive mission would be successful. That we would lose our constitutional republic for a politically correct rein of terror.

As the left continues its assault on decency with the unfair subversive advantage of support from media, education, and entertainment, there is a very real chance that it will all blow back in their faces.

I have to admit, in a brief period of turbulent transition, I’d no doubt enjoy seeing people like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, John Brennen, and Hillary Clinton et al receive just instruction for their arrogance.

There have certainly been just causes to be addressed in the American system and any society can use some perpetual repair but, one of the most cogent statements in support of conservatism is, “if it’s not broken, don’t ‘fix’ it.” — definitely don’t seek to destroy it. No matter who comes out on top in the end, it is ultimately the left that has initiated the momentum toward chaos and the destruction of our constitutional republic as we’ve known it. And for that, they will likely pay a high price in the end.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?