A Disruptive Eight Years

For John, BLUF:  Columnist Kimberly Strassel lays out how the Democrats perverted our system of Government in order to keep President Trump out of office.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Left’s Mangled Guardrails

Here is the sub-headline:

They’ve spent eight years trying to kill democracy in the name of saving it.

From The Wall Street Journal, by Columnist Kimberley A. Strassel, 16 January 2025, 5:17 pm ET.

Here is the lede plus four:

The modern Democratic Party specializes in projection, and Joe Biden offered a model of the method in his Wednesday night farewell address.  His warnings that a “dangerous” “abuse of power” is coming can only be read as the left’s latest excuse and argument for its own misbehavior.

That model proved gold for Democrats during Donald Trump’s first term as president.  The constant refrain that the “tyrant” was unraveling democracy provided their justification for tearing through standards and norms.  In the name of saving the country from Trump excesses, we were told, holdover acting Attorney General Sally Yates had to defy presidential orders, the Federal Bureau of Investigation needed to lie to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a special counsel was required to dog a sitting president, the bureaucracy had a duty to “resist” Trump policy, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had to undergo a circus inquisition, and Congress had no choice but to hold Trump officials in contempt, issue unprecedented subpoenas and impeach the president.

None of this was good for norms, though it did serve Democratic partisan interests.  The proof is that these accusations didn’t end with Mr. Trump’s exit.  Mr. Biden was elected on a vow to respect norms, yet of all the many promises he has broken, his and the left’s continued ramming of guardrails may prove the most damaging in the long term.  They deserve a roll call, especially as Mr. Biden continues to bathe in the illusion that his party spent four years “respecting the institutions that govern a free society: the presidency, the Congress, the courts . . . the separation of powers, checks and balances.”

In the name of justice, Mr. Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, became the first in history to train his department on a former president—who also happened to be the biggest political threat to his boss.  This provoked any number of “unprecedented” moments in our country—the first-ever FBI raid on a former president, novel legal theories spun into new definitions of “conspiracy,” legal briefs filed to influence an election.

The left’s broader lawfare campaign—waged in the name of stopping a return of the “criminal” Trump—opened a Pandora’s box of complex cases, forcing courts to break new ground on issues that would have been better left unplumbed:  the contours of a post-Civil War insurrection law, the edges of executive privilege, the boundaries of presidential immunity.  Mr. Biden in his farewell lambasted yet again the high court’s immunity decision in Trump v. U.S. as dangerous.  But which side dragged us into this uncharted territory in the first place?

And on she goes, listing steps that were out of synch with our accepted political practices.  And as to President Biden whinging over the US Supreme Court's decision regarding Presiddential Immunity, I am not sure it should be any other way.  Without that Immunity the President would be handicapped in the execution of his office.

Ms Strassel is correct in her Column and the Democrats and the Biden Team Administration was out of order.

The good news is that it didn't work.

Hat tip to my Friend, Steve Broussard.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Bureaucrats vs the Elected Officials

For John, BLUF:  Some believe that the Federal Bureaucracy has aa block of officials who aree dedicated to resisting the Administration of President Donald Trump, Version 2.0.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Leftist Ideologues Dominating the Federal Civil Service Have Created a New Version of the Spoils System

From PJ Media, by Mark Tapscott, 17 January 2025, 7:07 PM.

Here is the lede plus two:

This won't shock anybody who served time working in the government bureaucracy, but the biggest obstacle facing President-elect Donald Trump likely isn't the Elite Media or the Deep State, but rather the management ranks of the career federal civil service.

"Wait a minute, Tapscott," you may be muttering. "Are you telling us that nameless, faceless bureaucrats are going to be more powerful and influential in blocking Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda than the 'journalists' at ABC/CBS/NBC/New York Times/Washington Post and the political plumbers of the Intelligence Community?"

Why yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and Exhibit A here is a recent survey conducted for the Napolitan Institute by RMG Research of 500 federal civil service managers being paid at least $75,000 and living in the Washington, D.C., region.

Like myself, the author comes from a family of Federal Bureaucrats, he more in depth and my more in breadth.  But, like me, he wonders if the gains from the Pendleton Act of 1883 are beeing sustaijned or perverted.  As we recall, a merit based Civil Service was introduced because of the assassination of President James A. Garfield in 1881, by a disappointed office seeker.

Today we have an entrenched Civil Service which seems, in part, to see itself as the fourth branch of government (the Fourth Estate, pushing aside the Press), responsible for protecting the Government from the actions of Congress and the President, and the Supreme Court.  They are the Technocrats running the Administrative State.

A survey of 500 federal civil service managers being paid at least $75,000 and living in the Washington, DC, region, by RMG Research for the Napolitan Institute, found "42% of those federal managers surveyed declared their intent to either strongly oppose or oppose Trump once he is sworn in and back in the Oval Office".  That does not strike me as show a Democracy should work.  That is surrendering control of our lives to self-prepetuating Administrators.

But, on the bright side:

44%, said they would either strongly support or support Trump's agenda.  But then we read that among the federal managers who identified themselves as Democrats, two-thirds said they would actively oppose orders advancing Trump policies.

But, most revolutions are brought about by a small group with the belief that they are correct and the vast majority is either wrong or clueless.  Revolutions are brought about by groups less that 40% of the population.

If you are an anti-Trumper and you are counting on the Bureaucracy to control President Trump you are showing Fascist tendencies.  What you should have done was work harder to see Candidate Kamala Harris elected.  What you did was not sufficient.  You failed.

The negative attitude toward Bureaucrats and a Bureaucratic State were expressed Friday by Senator Tim Sheehy (R-MT).  He noted "This Country Was Not Founded by 65-Year-Old Bureaucrats".  Granted, Ben Franklin was 70 years old when the Declaration of Independence was drawn up, but the writer was Thomas Jefferson, at 33.

There is an importance place in our system for a meritocratic professional Civil Service.  But, they are there to implement the laws as passed by Congress and administered by the Elected President.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Election Interference

For John, BLUF:  The Democrats, in 2024, got election help from overseas, including from the British Labour Party.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT

From 𝕏, by Mr Jim Ferguson, 14 January 2025, 6:21 AM.

Here is the Tweet:

BREAKING: Labour’s Head of Operations, Sophia Patel, has deleted her LinkedIn profile and locked her Twitter after explosive allegations surfaced that she organized 100 Labour staffers to meddle in the 2024 US election—allegedly to prevent Donald Trump’s reelection.

Here’s where it gets serious: thanks to extradition laws signed by former Labour PM Tony Blair, it’s now easier for UK citizens to be sent to the US to face charges.

Patel could potentially be charged with:
1️⃣ Election Interference
2️⃣ Failure to Register as a Foreign Agent (FARA)
3️⃣ Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the US
4️⃣ Cybercrime or Unauthorized Access
5️⃣ Transporting Funds for Unlawful Purposes
6️⃣ Interstate Travel to Aid Unlawful Activities

If convicted, these charges carry severe penalties, including significant fines and prison time.  Is Patel now terrified she’ll be extradited and prosecuted under US law?  This could explode into a major international scandal with far-reaching implications.

I don't see this as a big deal.  Considering the number of elections our Government has meddled in, that someone outside our nation should play in ours is not a susrprise.  That is not to say that we shouldn't take steps to limit outside intererence.

On the other hand, this move was a little tone deaf on the part of Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Labour Party.  Maybe they thought Candidate Kamala Harris would win, but it was a bet with a big down side.

I say grant Ms Patel a pardon and use it to heckle Mr Starmer.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Pay Without Work

For John, BLUF:  In Minnesota the democrats in the Lower House of the State Legislature are not willing to meet, as a way of frustrating the Republican majority.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN MINNESOTA [UPDATED]

From Power Line, by Blogger John Hinderaker, 12 January 2025.

Here is the lede plus two:

Minnesota is a purple state, balanced on a knife’s edge, as the 2024 election showed.  There are 134 Minnesota House districts, and when the returns were in, it looked like Republicans had gained enough seats so that the House would be tied, 67-67.  But then it came to light that one of the Democrats’ candidates had cheated: in House District 40B, Democrat Curtis Johnson falsely claimed to reside in the district, a constitutional requirement.

His Republican opponent filed an election contest, which was successful, as the evidence against the Democrat was overwhelming.  A district court issued an injunction barring Johnson from taking that seat.  A special election will be held to fill the seat at some time in the future; the exact schedule is now the subject of litigation.  So currently there are 133 elected representatives holding election certificates:  67 Republicans and 66 Democrats.  Republicans hold a majority, brought about by the fact that Democrats cheated and got caught.

Democrats are panicked over the prospect that they will lose control over one house of Minnesota’s legislature, and they have determined on a desperate strategy.  The 2024 legislative session begins on Tuesday, and all 66 Democrats are going to refuse to show up for work.  Their theory is that by hiding out, they will prevent the establishment of a quorum, and thereby disable Minnesota’s House (effectively, the entire legislature) from doing any business.  They hope that at some point in the future, they will win a special election in 40B, at which time they say they will go back to work.  Meanwhile, they intend to continue drawing their pay as legislators.

Yes, Minnesota is the State with Governor Tim Walz, Ms Kamla Harris' running mate in 2024.

Heaven forfend that the business of the People of Minnesota gets done.

And letting Author John Hinderaker have the last word:

However cynical you may be about Democrats, you are not cynical enough.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Hegseth to be Grilled

For John, BLUF:  A question for the US Senate is if Nominee Pete Hegseth is the person to lead the Department of Defense into a new future.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The U.S. is unprepared for a major war.  Can Pete Hegseth fix that?

Here is the sub-headline:

Trump's defense secretary pick would face a staggering challenge in readying America for war.

From The Wash Post, by Reporter Max Boot, 13 January 2025.

Here is the lede plus three:

Tuesday's confirmation hearings for defense secretary are sure to focus on all the troubling allegations of misconduct swirling around intended nominee Pete Hegseth (which he has denied).  But let's not lose sight of the big picture.  The essential question that senators must ask is whether Hegseth, a Fox News host and former National Guardsman, has the capacity and experience to prepare the armed forces to fight a major war — and, if so, how he would go about it.  Because right now, the U.S. military simply is not ready to defeat an adversary such as China or Russia in a protracted conflict.

Don't take my word for it:  That's the judgment of the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy, which issued its final report in July.  The commission, chaired by former California congresswoman Jane Harman, came to a sobering conclusion that did not get the attention it deserved:  "The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war. ...  The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today."

The commission went on to warn that "China is outpacing the United States and has largely negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific" and that "the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat."

The problem isn't that the U.S. military has gone "woke," as MAGA partisans such as Hegseth allege.  The problem is that America became complacent after the Cold War when it downsized its armed forces and its defense-industrial base.  Since then, the United States has prepared a military suitable for fighting insurgents in Afghanistan or Iraq — but utterly inadequate for an extended fight against a major power.

Yes, the question is how to navigate the Department of Defense toward a new readiness goal, while garnering support in Congress for the needed funding. : As Author Boot points out, to meet President Trump's demand that NATO nations spend 5% on Defense, it would be an increase of $600 billion a year, to more than $1.4 trillion a year.

People can say that Mr Hegseth lacks the managem3ent experience to guide the Defense behemouth.  On the other hand, we have had a number of successful managers from industry who have not been up to the task of turning out a winning military force  Secretasry of Defense Robert S McNamara comes to mind.

But, success at the Pentagon is more than efficient spending of money.  It is also about building a cohesive fighting force, united and innovative.  I would think that Nominee Hegseth could be that person.

Regards  —  Cliff

Four Years of Ignorance

For John, BLUF:  What are Democrats talking about when they talk about an insurrection on 6 January 2020.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Just a rant:

From , by Blogged Charles Glasser, 7 Januaary 2025, 10:02 am.

Here is the lede plus two:

LOOKING BACK (A bit long): I’ve studied an awful lot of history in getting a degree in political philosphy, and that through the very left-leaning CUNY school system.  On reflection, it has become clear to me that anyone who uses the word “insurrection” descibing the idiocy of Jan. 6 has no idea what they are talking about.

Was it a riot?  Yep.  Were many of the particpants dopes?  Yep.  But read how John Adams, Robespierre, Lenin, Mao and Castro pulled off genuine “revolutions” and you’ll see that mobbing a capitol building isn’t even close.  You need to control central information and transportation hubs, get the army to back you, and bring weapons.

None of that happened on J6.  If you use the word “insurrection” to describe J6:  You have zero credibility.

Sums up my view on the issue.  For example, who went to the studios of NPR to take control of that source of information to the Citizens?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

6 January 2021

For John, BLUF:  Democrats seem to have long memories, but an inability to understand that some are less locked in on the events of 6 January and its long term impact on our Democracy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Wow, Democrats Lost the Capitol Riot Narrative Big Time

From PJ Media, by Writer Matt Margo,is, 6 January 2025, 6:14 PM.

Here is the lede plus one:

In the four years since the Capitol riot, Democrats have tried incessently to turn it into a national tragedy akin to 9/11 and/or the Pearl Harbor attack. With the goal of preventing Trump from being able to seek the presidency again, they even called it an insurrection (it wasn’t) and accused Trump of inciting it (he didn’t).

There efforts failed, and Trump was reelected on November 5, becoming the first Republican presidential candidate to win the national popular vote since George W. Bush. Oh what a sweet victory it was. On Monday, Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris was certified, and once again, Democrats proved they just can’t let their phony baloney narrative go.

The article comtains numbers showing how attitudes have shifted on the events of 6 January 2021.  One paragraph that stood out was this.

A deeper dive reveals an even more striking reality.  In January 2021, 48 percent of voters blamed Trump for the Capitol riot.  By December 2023, that number had fallen to just 37 percent.  Fewer Americans blamed Trump, fewer thought it made him ineligible to lead, and, perhaps most tellingly, far fewer cared enough to remember it.  When asked about their biggest memory of Trump’s first term, only 5 percent of Americans pointed to January 6.  Among Republicans, it was a meager 2 percent.

Politico reported that today the US Department of Justice announced it is considering more prosecutions with regard to the events of 6 January 2021.

Federal prosecutors are weighing charging as many as 200 more people for their involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — including 60 suspected of assaulting or impeding police officers during the riot that nearly derailed the transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.

I expect it is to the advantage of Republicans that leading Democrats, such as Senator Chuck Schumer, remain fixated on the events of four years ago.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff