Have Some Cheese

Via Insty, I see that some career diplo-twerp is having a conniption fit over God-Emperor Trump’s ill-treatment of career diplomats.

Within the senior ranks, however, we watched our assignment possibilities vanish as the White House left top diplomatic positions vacant and handed out others as rewards to political cronies, campaign donors, and members of President Trump’s golf clubs. Senior jobs at the State Department which had typically been filled by career foreign service officers went to blatantly unqualified appointees. Sensitive diplomatic special envoy positions were given to people such as an assistant to Trump’s son-in-law.

Boo fucking hoo.

I don’t know where this little fart has been — warming a chair in State for three decades, apparently — but along with Custer’s difficulties in Wyoming, the news is that ambassadorships have always  been a “spoils” position — doled out to political party favorites and donors.

It’s long been a truism that the entire State Department is simply a delivery vehicle for Democrat Party foreign policy, regardless of which party’s leader sits in the Oval Office or which party controls Congress, even.  And it’s also true that State hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory, either:  I remember full well how the U.S. Embassy staff in London had this huge party planned for Hillary Bitch Clinton’s coronation in 2016, and when it became apparent that she was having her broad ass kicked by the aforementioned Trump, how that party turned into a wake when the Electoral College count was concluded.

And now these apparatchiks are amazed, nay shocked  that the President places them lower than pond scum on his daily to-do list?  Frankly, I think that Trump’s swamp-draining efforts should have started with these fuckheads, and one of the few really bad hiring mistakes he made was Rex Tillotson, who as a lifelong corporate executive was always going to go with maintaining the status quo (i.e. the State Department position) in terms of our relationships with foreign powers — which is why Trump kicked him out, eventually, because Trump’s goal always was to change the nature of those relationships.

America pays a heavy price for turning statecraft into a playground for rich amateurs. Embarrassing blunders, scandals and mismanagement are commonplace for some of the most unqualified.

Uh huh.  I remember when Bill Fucking Clinton made Senator Symbol — Carol Mosely-Braun (D-IL), the stupidest senator in living history — into an ambassador, and who was so inept that the host country’s foreign services department threw a party when she finally left.  The country?  New Zealand.  Ask me how any Trump appointee could be worse than that.  (And don’t even get me started  on other Democrat SecState failures like Hillary “Libya” Clinton and John Fuckface Kerry, or we’ll be here all day.)

So the hell with these little placeholders in State.  Their influence has been either incorrect — former bootlegger-turned-ambassador Joe Kennedy telling FDR that the Brits were going to be defeated by Nazi Germany in 1939 — or even inimical to our national interests — Alger Hiss, anyone? — and the career diplomats’ much-vaunted “expertise and experience” in foreign policy is far too overestimated.

This whole lament as linked is simply a tantrum because the President isn’t doing what they think  he should be doing — almost a textbook definition of the Swamp that Trump promised to drain.

Don’t like what the Boss is doing?  Quit and put your diplomatic formal suits to good use as headwaiters, you limpwristed pantywaists, the sooner the better.

Quote Of The Day

Once again, the QOTD comes from Diplomad:

For the coming year? What do I really want? I want revenge.
I know that’s not very Christmassy and all, but then I am an Old Testament sort of guy who wants to see my enemies smitten by a vengeful God. I wish disaster upon the world’s oldest political party, the Democrat party; at a minimum, I want to see the Dem Party suffer the fate of British Labour for what it has done to America and the West. That clown show long ago ceased to be even mildly amusing.
We got very lucky in 2016: Donald Trump provided us a life boat to get away from the Democratic Titanic. We need to take advantage of that to the full. GOP: And, please, no more Romneys or Ryans! No more me-too GOP.

My thoughts, exactly.

Nope. Too Late.

The Raj tries to explain why God-Emperor Trump should try to heal the nation and bring its fractured pieces back together again (cf. Humpty Dumpty):

America, right now, despite the aforementioned affluence and peacefulness, is a truly unpleasant place to live. We are not loving our neighbors.
The unfortunate result of this, despite its being inherently unfair, is that Trump alone can and must lead the way in curing this condition. No one else is in a position to do it and he cannot expect his enemies to help him, if past performance is any indication.
In order to really “make America great again,” so we can indeed live with each other, even if Durham indicts half a dozen of his opponents, even if he wins a smashing victory in November, the president must resist two powerful temptations: vengeance and gloating.
He should be “the good father,” which he evidently is to his own children, not the angry or cheated man, which he is to his political opponents, justifiably or not.

Sorry, but that’s just not gonna happen, Rog, despite the noble intent.  For two opposing factions to come together, there has to be some common ground and some comity on both sides.

We conservatives have tried both (bipartisanship, polite grassroots movements like the Tea Party, and moderate Republican presidents like George W. Bush), and the fucking Commies have responded with feral intensity to trash all of it.

Unity can only come under three sets of circumstances:  a common basis for society, a shared enemy, or a desire to be united.  We have no common ground between Left and conservatists;  in fact, we’re diametrically opposed.

Actually, we do have a shared enemy, all right, except we conservatives are becoming united against the Commies (they’ve always  been united against us), and the common enemy we now have is each other.

We’re way past wanting to be united.  The Left has called us every epithet under the sun;  they’ve started treating  us conservatives like we’re totalitarian Nazis not worthy of even being allowed to eat dinner in peace;  and if we dare to express opposition to them, we’re attacked either literally by their Pantifa goons, or in the media by the shouting heads at CNN et al.  It takes two sides to want to be united, and the Left isn’t interested because they’ve begun to believe their own insane propaganda.

So no, I don’t think President Trump should try to bring the two sides together.  In the first place, such an effort will fail because the Left (and their Never-Trumper noch schleppers) absolutely hate his guts and will repulse (not would — there’s no conditional circumstance) and revile any of his approaches.  Secondly, even moderate conservatives are starting to learn what we ultra-conservatives have known all along:  no matter how much we try, the only time the Left will accept us is when we do precisely what they  want, and only then.  “Bipartisan” to the Left, in other words, means “we’ll agree to do something with you only as long as you’ll agree to do exactly what we  want”.

Frankly, I’m sick of it.  There are two socio-political groups in this country, and each one has a diametrically-opposite idea to the other of what this country should look like and how it should be governed.  Our Humpty-Dumpty nation has fallen off the wall and is finished, over, done with.

There are two solutions:  geographic partition, and actual civil war.  (If this sounds similar to 1860, it is.  People always wonder how things could come to such a pass back then;  now it should be quite apparent.  The problem now is that the Left is trying to paint Middle America as the slave owners, when in fact the opposite is the case.)

I would prefer the first solution — even though partition itself would cause violence to break out as the details became known and acted upon.  As for the second solution:  frankly, I’m getting to the point where I think I’d just have to handle whatever a genuine civil war might bring, and let the chips fall where they may.  One thing I do know is that I will be the last to start it, but once engaged I will do my level best to finish it.

You see, I’m not interested in living the rest of my life in a California- or New York-type of society.  That’s not what I signed on for when I immigrated, back in the mid-1980s.  I suspect that there are lots more immigrants like me, and still more people among the native-born population who have seen their civil rights eroded and their society turning more into Southern California.

I’m not the only conservative who feels this way, if the events in Virginia are any kind of portent.

The Virginia situation might yet be averted at the next election, by the way, which should see the Commies kicked out of statewide office.  And we as a nation might still get another five years of grace when Trump is reelected later in 2020.  After that, however, all bets are off.  I don’t think conservative people are going to go adopt the “reconciliation” that Roger Simon is advocating — there is no longer a future for gentleman-Republicans like George W. Bush in our polity.  I also know that the Left always  needs an enemy, and if there isn’t one, they’ll create one.  Which, right now, is us:  Middle America, Flyover Country, the White Patriarchy, Western European culture, Christians, the Deplorables, or any and all of the above.

So here we are.  Good luck to us all.

Trust, Religion And Institutions

I like this post, especially this excerpt:

The soft, feminine authoritarianism we see in the West is a free rider. It is possible because of the inertia from the old high trust societies that came before it. If Finland faced a real crisis, one that threatened its existed, the first thing that happens is their pixie of prime minister is replaced with a serious person. The same would be true in Canada, where their gender fluid prime minister is mostly a luxury item.

Which leads me to a tangential point.  Generally speaking, if Z-man is correct, weak rulers are an indulgence during times of peace and/or prosperity in democratic societies.  Harsh times, as he indicates, call for strong leaders — Churchill in 1940, De Gaulle in 1959, Pinochet in 1973 and Reagan in 1981.  And taking Canada as an example, they have been able to elect essentially weakling prime minister pretty much forever  (e.g. Trudeau Mark I and II in the 1970s and 2010s, respectively), living as they do under the protection of the United States.  I refer to them (and that Millennial Finnish premier) as “dilettante” leaders because in good times, they are not really harmful and can play at being leaders.

Now ask yourself these two questions:

  • Is the United States in such a position of peace, prosperity and security that we can afford to indulge ourselves with a weak leader?
  • Is there a single  Democrat presidential candidate that can not be described as a dilettante leader?  To put the question into perspective:  in any negotiation with China’s Xi, Russia’s Putin or even Iran’s Khameini, would the putative Democrat president (i.e. from any of the current candidates) emerge as the victor?  Put another way:  can any of the above candidates be favorably compared to, say, a stronger Democrat president such as Harry Truman?

Every leader in the world knew who was the stronger adversary when faced with Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.  And they all likewise knew who was the stronger when the U.S. President was Jimmy Carter — who, by the way, is an absolute colossus compared to Buttigieg, Biden, Warren and the other socialist stooges.

I also think that most Americans who don’t believe in pixie dust, unicorns and Communism understand this concept absolutely;  which, by the way, explains why Republican voters chose Trump over the other Republican candidates in 2016, and why Ted Cruz — who is not a dilettante candidate — was their second choice, albeit a distant second.

Given the current state of the world and our position in it — and thus understanding that the United States cannot really ever indulge itself with a weak president — the choice facing us in Election 2020 is quite clear.  This is no time for a boutique president — it’s never a good time for a Marxist president — and I’m pretty sure that we Americans know it.

Too Late For That

From a Democrat:

Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ) is leaving the party and becoming a Republican over the issue of impeachment, which he has long been opposed to.
Van Drew told CNN earlier this month that Democrats should “be careful what [they] wish for” because impeachment “is tearing the nation apart.”

Hate to tell you this, Jeff old cock, but your ex-buddies started the tearing a long time before impeachment was even mentioned.  Think back to labeling amiable people such as G.W. Bush and even Mitt Romney as “Hitler” and “fascist” — and not once being rebuked by party leadership for doing so — and I think you’ll see who started all this, and when.

Just don’t be surprised if in November, your newly-adopted party’s leader wins 45 states and you lose your seat.  (Think:  Stalin’s opinion of Trotsky, and you’ll get an idea of your party’s reaction.  Remember:  Marxists always reserve their greatest hatred for people whom they call “counter-revolutionaries”, i.e. party members who dare to go against the Party.)

Polls Apart

I see this from the Rassholes:

Voters are ready to jail or fire senior law enforcement officials who illegally targeted President Trump.

This is all part of the pussification of American society, because I’m pretty sure that if the polls were taken exclusively among my Readers and those of similar ilk, “jail” would disappear altogether and be replaced with “hanging, drawing and quartering”, “scourging” or “flaying”, with the tender-hearted among us (there may be one or two) favoring “tar ‘n feathers” and similar, more-humanitarian punishments.

We are, after all, talking about sedition if not treason.  And it was either started by, or actively condoned by, the guy at the top at the time.

And if you don’t at least smile grimly at the thought of Comey, Brennan, Clapper et al.  being the featured attractions at a noose party, I don’t wanna talk to you.