The Indispensable Man

Yesterday was, of course, the anniversary of George Washington’s birth. Without his life, the United States, if it even existed, would be a very different place. Long ago, Jessica touched on his (probably unconscious) model:  Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

I addressed King George’s view of him after he resigned his commission in the Continental Army here, and here, even how the left attempts to steal the legacies of the founders.

Scott Johnson at PowerLine wrote about him yesterday, as well.

In anticipation of Washington’s visit to Newport, the members of America’s oldest Jewish congregation prepared a letter welcoming Washington for presentation to him at a public event on the morning of August 18. The letter was authorized by the congregation’s board and signed by its president, Moses Seixas. It is Washington’s magnificent letter responding to Seixas that that has become famous as one of the classic statements of religious toleration in America.

The congregation’s letter to Washington is not so well known, although the most prominent line in Washington’s letter is an echo of the congregation’s letter to Washington. By far the most striking feature of the congregation’s letter is its expression of sheer gratitude to Washington himself and to America for the freedom and equal rights the congregants had attained as American citizens. Here is the congregation’s letter:

Permit the children of the stock of Abraham to approach you with the most cordial affection and esteem for your person and merits ~~ and to join with our fellow citizens in welcoming you to NewPort.

With pleasure we reflect on those days ~~ those days of difficulty, and danger, when the God of Israel, who delivered David from the peril of the sword, ~~ shielded Your head in the day of battle: ~~ and we rejoice to think, that the same Spirit, who rested in the Bosom of the greatly beloved Daniel enabling him to preside over the Provinces of the Babylonish Empire, rests and ever will rest, upon you, enabling you to discharge the arduous duties of Chief Magistrate in these States.

Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People ~~ a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance ~~ but generously affording to all Liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: ~~ deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language equal parts of the great governmental Machine: ~~ This so ample and extensive Federal Union whose basis is Philanthropy, Mutual confidence and Public Virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth in the Armies of Heaven, and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatever seemeth him good.

For all these Blessings of civil and religious liberty which we enjoy under an equal benign administration, we desire to send up our thanks to the Ancient of Days, the great preserver of Men ~~ beseeching him, that the Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the promised Land, may graciously conduct you through all the difficulties and dangers of this mortal life: ~~ And, when, like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality.

Done and Signed by order of the Hebrew Congregation in NewPort, Rhode Island August 17th 1790.

Moses Seixas, Warden

The painting that leads this article was painted by Scottish-born portraitist Archibald Robertson, on commission from David Erskine, 11th Earl of Buchan (1742-1829), who wished, he wrote,  “that I might place it among those whom I most honor.” (You can read the earl’s entire letter to Washington here;Buchan also entrusted Robertson with a special gift for Washington, a wooden box said to be made of the oak that sheltered William Wallace.). From: Two Nerdy History Girls.

After some adventures of its own,”in 1951, the current Earl Buchan presented the painting to Sulgrave Manor,the English birthplace of Washington’s ancestors, where it hangs today.”

But before (or after, who knows) painting that portrait of Washington as the fearless and decisive Commander in Chief, he painted another one, a miniature of Washington (and another of Martha, as well, as they appeared in 1792.

This one shows the very man that quelled the only reported American military coup with the words.

 “Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown gray in your service and now find myself growing blind.”

As General Light Horse Harry Lee eulogized him:

First in War, First in Peace, First in the Hearts of his Countrymen.

Advertisements

Life is Winning in America

A few videos, scenes, not to mention words that moved me relating to The March for Life in Washington last Friday. Enjoy!

Over at Life News, there is an amazing time-lapse video of the people streaming the streets.

One more video maybe

The Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, wrote an op-ed in the National Review last Friday.

In short, life is winning in America again. It’s winning because of the policies of our administration, and because of the commitment and compassion of those who gather today in our nation’s capital, and in marches, meetings, and homes all across the country.

Life is winning through the steady advance of science that illuminates when life begins.

Life is winning through the generosity of millions of adoptive families, who open their hearts and homes to children in need.

Life is winning through the compassion of caregivers and volunteers at crisis-pregnancy centers and faith-based organizations who bring comfort and care to women, in cities and towns across this country.

And life is winning through the quiet counsel between mothers and daughters, grandmothers and granddaughters, between friends across kitchen tables, and over coffee on college campuses, where the truth is being told, and hope is defeating despair.

We must continue to be a movement that embraces all and cares for all out of respect for the dignity and worth of every person. We must recommit ourselves to be a movement of compassion, not confrontation, of generosity, not judgment, and above all else, we must continue to be a movement of love.

This I know we’ll do – because I have faith.

I have faith in the goodness of the American people. I have faith in the president they elected. And I have that other kind of faith – the faith that moves mountains, and that, even now, stirs all across America.

And Senator Mike Lee with a floor speech in the United States Senate.

Mr. President, today hundreds of thousands of Americans from all walks of life will participate in the 45th annual March for Life.

Why do these citizens march, year after year?

It certainly isn’t for their health … Or for the media coverage.

No, these Americans march on behalf of those who cannot.

They march for uniquely vulnerable members of the human family. For the unborn. For those threatened by abortion. And for the countless innocent lives already lost.

These Americans march to protest the legal regime that sustains abortion.

The cornerstone of that crumbling edifice is Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that invented a so-called “right” to abortion in the Constitution, and in so doing stripped the unborn of their right to life.

The principal effect of Roe on our culture has been to cheapen the value of humanity itself. 

Roe has insinuated into the law a poisonous notion, the notion that some human beings may be treated as things. As objects to be discarded when they are inconvenient. We’ve seen this before in human history.

But an unintended effect of Roe has been to kick-start a movement that has lasted for four-and-a-half decades.

Roe did not resolve the abortion debate — although it tried to. Rather it intensified the debate.

The nation’s conscience was not deadened by Roe’s euphemisms and evasions; rather it was brought to life.

Like a firebell in the night, Roe awakened a generation of Americans to the injustice of abortion.

Countless thousands of them are marching in Washington, Salt Lake City, and cities across the country today.

But the institution of abortion still has its defenders. Vociferous defenders, even.

Why does this issue arouse such anger and passion?

I argue it is because the pro-life and pro-abortion rights movements offer competing moral visions for our society. Indeed, competing arguments about human dignity and what it means to be human in the first place.

Both moral visions are as old as the nation. They have appeared in various guises all throughout our history.

But there is a consistent trend in how the clash of visions has played out in every era.

The vision advanced by the pro-life movement has inspired righteous protests. The other vision has been used to rationalize hideous injustices.

The pro-life vision embraces our country’s noblest truth. The pro-abortion vision twists it.

Let me explain what I mean.

Our Declaration of Independence contains one of the most succinct and revolutionary statements in human history.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

We know that the United States has not always acted on this high principle. We have denied life, liberty, and opportunity to our fellow man in countless cruel and unfortunate ways.

But even in the darkest times, patriots and reformers have looked to this passage as a guiding light, because it is the conscience of our nation.

Abraham Lincoln referred to the Declaration constantly in his speeches, calling it the “sheet anchor of American republicanism” and the “Father of all moral principle.”

He called the Declaration’s statement on human equality the “electric cord” that links patriotic Americans through the ages.

Now that electric cord has reached us. It is a direct line that runs from the Founding Generation to the very heart of the pro-life movement.

The core conviction of the pro-life movement is that “all men are created equal.” That all have a right to life.

We believe that every human being has dignity and merits protection simply by virtue of being human.

You will often hear pro-lifers emphasize the human features of unborn children, as well we should.

We point out that the human heart begins to beat as early as 16 days after conception. We point out that the unborn child can yawn, react to pain, and suck her thumb. And we point out that that thumb even has a one-of-a-kind fingerprint.

But we do not mention these characteristics because they are what give unborn children worth. It is not our fingerprints or even our beating hearts that make us people.

Rather, we point to these characteristics because they point in turn to something more fundamental.

They point to the inescapable fact that the unborn child is a human being, just like us. A member of our messy family.

It is that endowment, that shared humanity, that gives us all moral worth.

And so, to summarize the pro-life position, we have only to repeat those five words in the Declaration: “All men are created equal.” All are entitled to life.

But to be sure, not everyone shares the belief that all men are created equal.

At various times this belief has been called an “error of the past generation.” It has even been called a “self-evident lie!”

Few today would denounce the Declaration of Independence in such terms.

But defenders of abortion still repudiate the Declaration by their actions, and by the arguments they advance to protect legal abortion.

Defenders of abortion no longer dispute that unborn children are living human beings. How could they? Science testifies unequivocally to our shared humanity.

Most sophisticated defenders of abortion do not even dispute that abortion is a violent act.

If you do not believe me on this point, perhaps you will believe Ronald Dworkin, a prominent apologist for the pro-choice position: “Abortion,” Dworkin writes, “[is] deliberately killing a developing human embryo.”

He goes on to describe abortion as a “choice for death.”

So if abortion defenders do not deny the humanity of the fetus, and if they do not deny that abortion kills the fetus, how then do they defend abortion?

In short, they do it by segregating the human family into two classes: Human beings who are worthy of life — sometimes referred to as “human persons”– and human beings who are unworthy of life — “human non-persons.”

According to this view, human beings do not deserve protection on the basis of their humanity alone.

Rather they gain the right to life when they attain certain characteristics — usually some level of cognitive ability or bodily development.

Since the unborn lack these magic personhood qualities, they lack the right to life and may be dismembered in the womb. They are “human non-persons.” Or so the argument goes.

There are many problems with this chilling view. It has been rebutted at length by smarter men and women than me.

But for the purposes of today, it is enough to point out the track record of this argument.

Because it just so happens that every time mankind has been artificially divided into classes — into “persons” and “non-persons” based on their race, sex, genetic fitness, or any other attribute — the result has been calamity.

Which leads to a very simple question that has never been satisfactorily answered by abortion’s defenders: Why should we believe that this time is any different?

Abortion is a difficult subject matter for so many reasons, but on another level it is quite simple.

Our society has to choose between the two visions of human dignity described above.

Put simply, do we believe that all men are created equal? Or that some are more equal than others?

This simple question deserves a simple response: We must choose the first of those options, and affirm that all human beings are created with dignity.

And we must reject all attempts to separate the human family into higher and lower classes.

Let us see these attempts for what they are: Cruel fictions that cheapen life itself.

Just as there is no such thing as “life unworthy of life,” there is no such thing as a “human non-person.” There are just people. And we are each fearfully and wonderfully made.

Yes, dignity was ours before we stirred in the womb. It is stamped onto the very fabric of our genome. It is printed onto our soul.

This is the truth so brilliantly proclaimed in our nation’s Founding Documents — even as it is denied by our legal system, starting with Roe v. Wade.

But even though the laws of man are against us (for now!), the truth is with us. And the truth can erode even the most formidable edifice of lies.

And so, on this forty-fifth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, let us respond to Roe as Frederick Douglass responded to a similar indignity, Dred Scott v. Sandford.

“Happily for the whole human family,” Douglass thundered, “their rights have been defined, declared, and decided in a court higher than the Supreme Court.”

Those words are as true today as they were when they were spoken.

They call us to continue the winding march for justice — and for life –until the unalienable rights of every human being are respected in our land.

Thank you.

 

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

%d bloggers like this: