Trump, the Media, the People, and the Party of McKinley

A horrible, terrible, doubleplusungood video taken apart by the good guys at Right Angle

Yep, I struggled through it too, so you don’t have to. It’s at least as bad as they said. But that’s not all that surprising.

HT: Ace. Yep, it’s true, too

Then there is this:

In the new poll, roughly half (51 percent) of Americans said the national political media “is out of touch with everyday Americans,” compared with 28 percent who said it “understand the issues everyday Americans are facing.”

President Donald Trump, a frequent public antagonist of the press and the first president in 36 years to skip the confab, is also slightly more trusted than the national political media. Thirty-seven percent of Americans said they trusted Trump’s White House to tell the truth, while 29 percent opted for the media.

I’d be inclined to say that an 8% advantage when the press has been bloviating (mostly falsely) about him, for a solid year is not really slight, but I suppose your mileage may vary.

Only 38 percent said they have “a lot” or “some” trust in the media covering Trump’s White House fairly, compared with about half (52 percent) who said they didn’t have much or none at all. Almost half (48 percent) also said they thought the media has been harder on Trump than other past presidential administrations. […]

But the media also scored low marks among independents, with more than half saying they didn’t trust national news outlets to cover the White House fairly and that they trusted Trump more. Roughly half (49 percent) also said the media was out of touch and 43 percent said outlets had been harder on Trump than other presidents.

Trump’s critiques of the media, which he commonly derides as “fake news” also seems to have struck a chord with Americans. A plurality (42 percent) said they see fake news in national newspapers or network news broadcasts more than once or about once a day. About 3 in 10 (31 percent) said they saw fake news from those sources once every few days, once a week or slightly less often than that.

Nothing new in any of that. Any of us that are old enough saw it all happen before during Reagan’s term. By the way, my British friends say the same thing with the added fillip that they are required to pay for the BBC if they watch anybody’s television. Ain’t that special? Yeah, essentially, “It’s a tax,” as our Supreme Court might say.

And that brings up something. I’m not really the type of guy that is likely to support Trump. I never cared for him in the private sector, nor in the primary. Did I vote for him? Yep, but that has more to do with Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. But now, while I think he’s doing a pretty decent job, I’m finding myself defending him more than I normally would, because of all the unwarranted (and often personal) attacks. I doubt I’m the only one. So a lot of what the left is accomplishing is to make sure that Trump will have a second term. For that matter, if the Republicans in Congress don’t get a clue, they make be looking for some of those lovely, lovely lobbyist jobs, even before the 2020 elections.

And this too may be true, from Scott at PowerLine.

My friend Charles Kesler is a learned and a witty man. He is the Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and presides over the Claremont Review of Books as its editor. He puts his his historical knowledge to use in postulating a theory of Trump for readers of the New York Times in — hold on to your hat! — “Donald Trump is a real Republican, and that’s a good thing.” Wait, you can’t say that in the Times without preparing readers for some kind of shock, can you?

What the headline terms a “real Republican” is, on Professor Kesler’s theory, a throwback to “the pre-New Deal, pre-Cold War party of William McKinley and Coolidge, with its roots in the party of Abraham Lincoln.” Professor Kesler explains:

Mr. Trump’s policies suggest that what he calls his “common sense” conservatism harks back to the principles and agenda of the old Republican Party, which reached its peak before the New Deal.

In those days the party stood for protective tariffs, immigration tied to assimilation (or what Theodore Roosevelt called Americanization), judges prepared to strike down state and sometimes federal laws encroaching on constitutional limitations, tax cuts, internal improvements (infrastructure spending, in today’s parlance) and a firm but restrained foreign policy tailored to the defense of the national interest. Are these not the main elements of Trump administration policies?

It’s not that Mr. Trump set out consciously to return the Republican Party to its roots. By temperament and style he’s more attracted to President Andrew Jackson, whose portrait now hangs in the Oval Office. “I’m a fan,” he said after visiting Jackson’s home, the Hermitage, near Nashville, in March. It’s more likely that his own independent reading of our situation led him to similar conclusions and to similar ways of thinking.

That is not a bad theory based on what I have seen in the last few months, and if correct, well I think we can live through that quite handily. Nothing new under the sun, and it worked pretty well back then. After all, that’s how we got the Roaring 20s.

Trump vs.the Deep State: Herbert Meyer’s Perspective

From PowerLine and very much worth your time, as are the comments over there, as is Meyer’s speech at Imprimis. Steven gives us the highlights.

The performance of our country’s intelligence service is the latest example of an issue exploding into the headlines and becoming a shouting match, while failing to clarify anything about the issue itself. This explosion was ignited last fall by allegations that the Russians hacked into Hillary Clinton’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the election. The blast radius expanded after the election, when rumors surfaced that the Russians had deployed their nasty tactic of kompromat to undermine President Trump’s credibility by spreading rumors about his private behavior while in Moscow years ago. All this, on top of failures that had already wreaked havoc at the CIA and our other intelligence agencies—the 9/11 attacks themselves, the mess over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the weird 2007 National Intelligence Estimate whose key judgment was that Iran had abandoned its nuclear bomb program, Edward Snowden’s NSA espionage activities—has kept the issue of our intelligence service in the headlines. . .

Back in January, when U.S. intelligence chiefs released an unclassified version of the briefing they gave to President-Elect Trump about Russian efforts to influence the November election, Americans learned a phrase that’s unique to the world of intelligence: key judgment. It was a key judgment that Russia had hacked into John Podesta’s email server, and a key judgment that Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. Since these key judgments understandably erupted into a nasty political brawl, let’s take a moment to understand what a key judgment really is. Simply put, it’s the conclusion reached by our most senior intelligence officials, based not only on the evidence they were able to collect, but also on the insights it enabled them to reach based on their knowledge and experience.

A key judgment isn’t the same as a jury verdict. A jury verdict is based solely on the evidence presented to it. In a murder trial, unless the prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, you must vote for acquittal. But in a National Intelligence Estimate, you reach a key judgment by starting with the evidence, then combining it with your own knowledge and experience to reach a conclusion. . .

So why has our intelligence service suffered so many failures during the last decade or so, losing the trust of so many? Because it’s been run by career bureaucrats and administrators who rose to the top by managing intelligence rather than actually doing it. That’s like putting an airline executive with an MBA and a law degree into the cockpit of a jumbo jet. And like bureaucrats and administrators everywhere, our recent intelligence chiefs focused on structure rather than on people. Of course all organizations, including intelligence services, need the proper structure. But especially in an intelligence service, good structure is worthless without the right people—in this case world-class analysts who are deeply knowledgeable about the Mideast, China, Russia, terrorism, and all the rest. Make a list of our country’s leading experts on these subjects. How many of them have held top-level jobs in our intelligence service during the last dozen or so years? How often have the leaders of our intelligence service reached out to these people to seek their advice? The correct answers are: none and rarely.

We are still in the early days of the Trump administration, but to borrow an overused Washington cliché, we should be cautiously optimistic about the future of our intelligence service. Neither Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats nor Director of Central Intelligence Mike Pompeo are professional bureaucrats. They’ve built their careers on substance rather than on management. Each of them has proven he can talk about the key issues that confront us with an impressive level of personal knowledge and insight. Each is capable of actually doing intelligence rather than merely overseeing it. . .

via Trump Vs. The Deep State: Herbert Meyer’s Perspective | Power Line

Meyer also talks a bit about why the CIA never looked at weaknesses in the Soviet Union. He says they were never asked. I have no problem with believing that, until Reagan, we were playing defense, playing to not lose, not to win. Part of the trouble is, I think, playing not to lose is a sucker bet. It a winner for administrators and bureaucrats. Why? Because it maintains the status quo, over entire careers and lifetimes. But it isn’t a winner for the country. Winning is a winner for the country.

What for example, would the world be like if the Soviet Union had disappeared at the time of the Hungarian uprising in 1956? From all the information I’ve seen, we would have been very lucky indeed to have made that happen. But Eisenhower didn’t try. I like Eisenhower, but even as a general he tended to be too tied to the plan, and the plan for the cold war was not to lose, it was never to win. Makes you wonder what MacArthur or Patton in the White House might have done. Maybe the same thing, neither was foolhardy.

Anyway, something to think about. What? You thought I had all the answers? I don’t even have all the questions. But I’ll say this, Trump needs, above all, to get control of the government, that has to be ‘Job 1’. If he doesn’t he’ll accomplish very little.

The Republic and the Preppers

downloadOk, this kerfuffle with General Flynn is either a tempest in a teacup or it may well be the most serious threat to the Republic ever, including the secessionists back in 1860. Too soon to tell, and by the time it is, it may well be too late to do anything about it.

That means that we may end up looking stupid as hell, but we can not and must not allow this to be swept under the rug.

My friend Ooobie, spent a good many years working for the Feds, as did her husband, I’ve found her views to be logical, and rational over the last few years. I do here, as well.

I watch astounded at the audacity of ignorant thugs hired by the left wreaking havoc on our nation. They are the paid hounds of hell, loosed on our society to force confrontation between the Marxist-Leninists (aka socialists) and the deplorables, also known as right-wingers, Nazis, neo-Nazis, fascists, and so on. (Did you ever notice how communists is never a dirty word for these guys?) I see that the unhinged Sarah Silverman became terrified by the neo-Nazi symbols painted all over New York. Those were, of course, utility markings that actually bore very little resemblance to a swastika. A woman contemptuous of Israel on a daily basis, she used her Jewish card to excuse her stupidity. Everything, including the tracks of slalom skiers, reminds her of swastikas, like the hiss of a snake is ingrained in a bird’s brain. Another tweeter skewered her stupidity with a series of tweets featuring “neo-Nazis” (utility workers) doing various neo-Nazi things, like raising the Iron Cross (a utility pole) that bore an obvious resemblance to “T” for Trump. He’s funny. She’s just, well, stupid.

Let’s be frank. There is a paid and coordinated effort to create public hysteria (the Russian menace; the Nazi regime) in order to feed approval for acts of subversion and treason against an elected president and the USG. They want to bring down Trump, and are happy to tear down the Constitution, individual rights and public order to do so. I worked for years for the USG, as did my husband. I have never seen this kind of open sabotage by people paid out of public funds. There was always a Democrat preference, but never the deliberate undermining of superiors. This is scary and shameful. This is unprecedented. These people want permanent power and we are the mote in their eye. […]

Another issue: the Russophobia. The degree of hysterical coverage of Russia has surpassed anything I have ever seen, which includes the entire Cold War. It is not a coincidence that this rise in public fear happens months after the USG funded a major program (under Obama) to counter Russian propaganda with US propaganda aimed at Russia.[…]

The two memes, that Russia is a major threat to the world and that they stole the US election for the evil Donald Trump, could bring an end to our system of government. We have reached a point where the rotten brats brought up in our indoctrination camps, aka public education, think a one-party dictatorship is a good thing, but only if they are it. Otherwise, “by any means necessary.”[…]

Here is what I want to see. I want to see the immigration raids continue relentlessly. I want to see the leakers tracked down and arrested and held without bail pending trial. I want an investigation of John Brennan and Mike Morell. I want an investigation into Soros funding of the rampant violence. I want both the Clinton server crimes and the Clinton Foundation crimes investigated. And I want to see the back of the Clintons (despite those ugly big saggy asses).

I usually have been a few years ahead of the curve in my predictions, although this year is a real drag on my average. But I’ll venture this. We are headed into a deliberately provoked civil war. Prepare for it.

For Christ’s sake, the Preppers were right.

via Sedition and treason stalk America | Ooobie on Everything Do read it.

There’s much I could add here, but there is little point. Ooobie is correct. This is not very far from a coup attempt, against an elected president by the bureaucracy this is why yesterday, I quoted President Eisenhower, he more than anybody else, in my lifetime, saw this coming. No doubt he thought it would be different, we rarely are given to see clearly into the future.

Then again, common sense could, I suppose, break out, and we can all go back to sleep. But I don’t think so, this time. There are too many who have been bought and paid for, by whatever you want to call that group, who adamantly oppose the very concept of the nation-state. To be honest, I see much the same happening in Britain, where the Brexiteers are often being shunted off to the side. On the continent, it’s worse, just ask Geert Wilders and others.

What’s unique this time, I think, is that it is a fair slice of the people, against the government, allied with the part of the population that has the idea that they are better fitted to rule than the people as a whole. As in Ooobie’s comment on Sarah Silverman above, and there are any number of examples, most of which I have, and will continue to, ignored. They aren’t. I’m not entirely sure they’re qualified to change their own diapers. They certainly haven’t the education to be anything but unemployed, nor have they enough social graces to be allowed in to dinner in the meanest of traditional homes.

As Ooobie said, “For Christ’s sake, the Preppers were right.”

I would only add, “Buy more ammunition.

CEO of America, Inc?

ar-170219969Don Surber hit on something, maybe something important the other day. Let’s take a look.

His inauguration speech was not that of a politician trying to be a statesman — there was no talk of any torches being passed on to a new generation. He simply laid down the law. He used the occasion to tell D.C. the high life is over, and it is time to serve America again.

Trump is the CEO who led a hostile takeover of the federal government — and if any employees don’t like it, there’s the door.

He hit the ground running upon election and then sped things up once inaugurated.

He is having the time of his life, well worth the $66 million he ponied up to fund his campaign and the billion bucks he will forgo in income he could have made if it were not for the campaign and his first term. Economists call that an opportunity cost.

Trump is the center of world politics, as the president of the United States should be.

The guy who had the job before was too lame and inexperienced to wear the crown.

But Barack Obama was better than the alternatives: a former first lady, an undisciplined war hero, and a Mormon groomed for the job his daddy wanted but lost when he said Johnson brainwashed him in Vietnam.

Americans in the 1960s decided they did not want a brainwashed president.

And in 2016, Americans decided politicians failed them, and they did not want a politician either. […]

He is pushing his agenda — largely written by Heritage Foundation wonks — fast and furious. The denizens of D.C. are panting for air.

“Just two weeks into his administration, Donald Trump’s presidency is off to a rapid pace. But even by his standards, Monday was especially frenzied,” Sam Stein of Huffington Post complained.

Stein quoted David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign adviser.

“There are so many fires burning in so many different places that there is sensory overload. There was a lot of action at the beginning of the Obama administration. But it was focused on dealing with a crisis. This is of a different nature and magnitude. I wouldn’t say an order of magnitude, because order is not necessarily part of it,” Axelrod said.

Trump has flooded the zone.

Washington is a sleepy old town that rolls at its own, Civil Service-protected speed. This reflects the political class, which thrives on problems. Actually solving those problems is another matter.

Democrats think filibusters can stop him. […]

Trump is bringing a sledgehammer to the status quo,” they wrote.

The sledgehammer is to get their attention. Trump explained this at the National Prayer Breakfast.

“The world is in trouble, but we’re going to straighten it out, okay? That’s what I do. I fix things. We’re going to straighten it out. Believe me,” Trump said.

Sure, he has a large ego, but I do not think that is the reason he ran. I think he ran because he thought his nation was led by people who want America to be a second-rate country.

His CEO approach to a system broken by politicians takes some understanding. His UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, lit into Russia, which CNN would have you believe elected Trump.

“Haley was speaking at an emergency UN meeting about a sudden upsurge in violence in eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists have been fighting the Ukrainian army. Her remarks were notable for the stark difference between her rhetoric and Trump’s,” CNN reported.

I guess good cop/bad cop is a concept foreign to CNN.

This incident shows the difference between a politician and a CEO. A politician would appoint Nikki because she is a she and a minority and cute as a button. A CEO would hire Governor Haley because she is tough as nails and won’t back down.

via Trump Is O.K. Crackerby – Watcher of Weasels

Yep, that about covers what I see. Hey, world, guess what, America is now starting to move at the speed of American business. That means that President Trump is so far inside the OODA loop of the Democrats that they just broke their necks swiveling their heads, the rest of the world is well behind that.

There is a reason that nearly everything that speeds up the world, from the steam locmotive to the internet, was either invented or perfected in America, often both. Even Alexis d’ Tocqueville commented that American are always in a hurry, speaking of getting it done “real quick”.

The only place our government has shown this before is in the American way of war. And even then, only when the national army was involved. In the Civil War (on both sides), in World War I, and especially in World War II, it was on display. The continuous unremitting pressure, the innovative tactics, often innovated at quite low levels, and the sheer ability to operate without higher authority. Who but America would put bulldozer blades on tanks? It was first done by an American sergeant in Normandy, to plow through the bocage.

Our now banned Dutch troll said the military has nothing to teach civilians, well in America we’ve never believed that, probably because our military reflects our country, not our elites. The sheer genius of those who decided how to teach America’s officer corp is remarkable. America’s wartime armies have always reflected our society, the peacetime services, not so much. It’s the civilian influx which has made them, like American business itself, unbeatable.

Britain’s Speaker Bercow may think he’s so right on, up-to-date that he threw away his wig, and said he wouldn’t invite Trump to speak in Parliament, well by the time he harrumphed through his planned lines, he was irrelevant, and the laughter in America had begun.

That’s American business, if it’s cheaper to build it in Mexico, it’ll be done, until it’s not. Trump understands that, I understand that, most of America understands that. The key is to change the reality, not the rules. And do it real quick.

What the world is seeing now, is American business (no not big business, this is mainstream entrepreneurship in charge) running America. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

America, Inc., CEO Donald J. Trump. Nothing like it in the world, ever. Wait till he gets up to speed.

Only in America do you hear:

Lead, follow, or get the f*** out of the way

45 Finally

And so for the forty-fifth time, we in America will pass the presidency to a new man. That man is Donald Trump, it hasn’t mattered since 8 November whether you (or I) think that is the greatest thing ever or the worst. As I say so often, reality is real. He joins an uninterrupted line that stretches back to George Washington. That is, I believe the longest continuous government in the world, quite a record for a bunch of men who rebelled against the greatest empire in their world, and when they managed to win, designed a government from scratch.

This has been a divisive election, the whole world knows that, and there are a lot of what can only be called sore losers around. This too is nothing new. My friend, juwannadoright, wrote of another one, we both remember.

It was Inauguration Day, January 20, 1961 and I was very sad.  John Fitzgerald Kennedy was going to become President of the United States, succeeding Dwight David Eisenhower in that position.

My parents had both supported Richard M. Nixon in the 1960 election and were disappointed in its outcome.  Nevertheless, like most of those in the country, they accepted its results and hoped that the new president would be good for the country.  Kennedy’s election was not the source of my sadness.  It was that we were losing Eisenhower.

I never knew either of my grandfathers.  But when I watched Ike on our Dumont television, he always impressed me as the kind of person who, if I were able, I would adopt as my foster grandfather.  He impressed me as calm, reasoned and a person who had control of every situation using his extensive life experience as his guide.  I felt safe with him running the country.  That was true despite the fact that many of our public buildings hosted “Air Raid Shelter” signs on their facades and that we conducted regular air raid exercises at school.  The cold war with our recently former ally, the Soviet Union, was in full bloom.

The presidential election of 1960 had not been without controversy.  Nixon carried 26 states to Kennedy’s 22.  But Kennedy won the nationwide popular vote by slightly more than 118,00,  rather remarkable considering that at that time there were 17 million more voters registered as Democrats than there were Republicans.   Kennedy overwhelmingly won the electoral college garnering 303 votes to Nixon’s 219, a margin of victory not very dissimilar from the margin that Trump had over Clinton in the 2016 election.  Ten states were decided by fewer than ten thousand votes each.  It was the closest election since 1916 when incumbent President Woodrow Wilson defeated Supreme Court Justice Charles Evan Hughes.  Despite a number of state recounts affirming the results, there were those who considered Kennedy’s election “illegitimate.”

She’s right, I remember it too. My parents supported Kennedy, but I remember it was a bit reluctant. They were New Dealers, like so many that lived through the Dirty Thirties and the Second World War, but they were also staunch Protestants. They would never have thought of discriminating in their personal lives against Catholics, but the history of our churches would have entered their minds. But it didn’t work out all that badly, although Kennedy’s inexperience did end up costing America both life and treasure. That’s the way of the world.

Unless we’re very lucky, Trump’s experience may be similar. Obama’s certainly has been, compounded by his seeming inability to learn from his, let alone others, mistakes. There are rumors of protests, well, there usually are, although they are spiced this time with threats of violence. Protest, as always in America, is fine, Violence, as always, is beyond the pale, and no doubt will be met accordingly. And no matter what anyone says, this is not the most divisive time in our history, that was 1861-65, and I pray we never again see the like.

Ronald Reagan, in 1977, gave a speech that summarized many of the problems we face. He said.

But how much are we to blame for what has happened? Beginning with the traumatic experience of the Great Depression, we the people have turned more and more to government for answers that government has neither the right nor the capacity to provide. But government, as an institution, always tends to increase in size and power, not just this government—any government. It’s built-in. And so government attempted to provide the answers.

The result is a fourth branch added to the traditional three of executive, legislative, and judicial: a vast federal bureaucracy that’s now being imitated in too many states and too many cities, a bureaucracy of enormous power which determines policy to a greater extent than any of us realize, very possibly to a greater extent than our own elected representatives. And it can’t be removed from office by our votes.

Hat tip to Steven Hayward at Powerline for that.

That is indeed much of our problem, as it is for others as well. The bureaucrats, however necessary they may be, have grown out of control, of the President, of the Congress, and especially of the People. That is a problem we must solve, our very freedom depends on it. Steve in his upcoming book says this:

“That bureaucratic government is the partisan instrument of the Democratic Party is the most obvious, yet least remarked upon, trait of our time.”

He’s correct, and it would be just as pernicious if it were the Republicans. Somehow, a solution must be found. But not today.

Today is a day to reflect on what we have created and sustained in America. A land that started as a subsistence farming strip along the Atlantic ocean has transformed itself into a free land that is by quite a lot the most powerful country the world has ever seen.

Congratulations, Mr. President and may God bless you and the United States.

Engineering Club Sensible

electoral-smallBy outlook, if not degree, I’m an engineer. My basic question is always, “Will it work, as designed, and can we build and run it on budget (or below)?” As far as I’m concerned, it’s what built the world we live in. It has nothing whatsoever to do with good intentions, it has much indeed to do with elegance. Maybe this is our year because it’s overwhelmingly a real world philosophy. It’s also overtly American, because America epitomizes the practical, yes, Americans are a very idealistic people, but down at bedrock, almost every American asks, “Does it work?”

Catherine Priestley wrote something about this the other day in The Spectator. Here’s some of it.

If there’s one thing we can all agree on, it is that the times are changing. When news of the Trump victory unfolded across the world, we watched from Sydney University’s Manning Bar. Never had it been so packed. Students piled in to watch history, all-consumed by the bright red map of America flashing on the screen.

My engineering friends bought me a beer and together we observed the room. On one side were slumped shoulders, ashen faces and tears from tragic left-wing students, whose world-view had suffered the rejection of the ballot box. The other side was a sea of red caps and raucous applause with each Trump gain; the unmistakable ecstasy of a formerly ostracised group, finally on the ascent.

The engineers are sensible people and don’t really belong to either extreme. Instead, they drink to democracy and are glad that a blow has at last been struck against political correctness. They talk excitedly of how they’d improve the data analysis of flawed polling and have a purely factual discussion about how the construction of the wall might be done. The upending of the status quo means the engineers, typically outsiders who stick to an isolated building on campus far away from frenzied student politics, are now invigorated to participate.

Leading up to Trump’s victory, one could sense change in the air. Doomsday articles threatening stock market crashes, polls that placed Trump firmly behind; all had a Brexit parallel about them. When Joe Hockey addressed the US Studies Centre the week before Trump’s election, he said that 70 per cent of Americans felt the country was heading in the wrong direction. ‘This is normally a game changer in politics,’ he remarked. […]

Although uncertainty is trending, one thing we can be sure of is that Outsiders everywhere are on the rise. In general, they are a broad alignment of people across all parties and factions who share a love of common sense and find themselves more consequential to politics now than they have been for some time. Perhaps they find themselves on the Left, but feel isolated due to the dogma of political correctness and identity politics. Or they are of the Right and have become angry with the authoritarian Insiders who appear to restrict personal freedoms. Either way, they are all members of what the late Christopher Pearson might have termed ‘Club Sensible’. While major parties appear to fragment and shrink in these changing times, Club Sensible’s membership base steadily grows.

via Engineering Club Sensible | The Spectator

I think she’s on to something here. That map at the top of the page, is about as red as I’ve ever seen, and overwhelmingly, the red parts are where people deal with the real world, you know the one where reality rules and good intentions don’t cut it.

Will Trump fix the world? No. But he may well drain at least some of the swamp, although that might anger some of the alligators that are up to our ass. We all know it out here, “No good deed goes unpunished,” we say. That’s all right, we also say, “What must be done, will be done.”

And so far, from the quality of the people he is picking, well, I’m very encouraged. It looks to me like he is picking some of the best of America, and that is the mark of the first-rate leader. That’s something that every grunt on a job site or enlisted soldier knows, but a whole lot of officers forget when they get stars in their eyes. But not all of them.

There’s a reason why 3d US Army had the fewest casualties while conquering the most ground back there in 1944. It was called “Lucky”. If I was an opponent of America’s, I would be praying very hard, because I think its new name may well be ‘Chaos’.

We’ve also been known to say with Jim Lovell, “There are people who make things happen, there are people who
watch things happen, and there are people who wonder what happened. To be successful, you need to be a person who makes things happen.”

bad-decisions

%d bloggers like this: