The Deep State Is Real

The Deep State is real. It is a body of people, made up of influential members of the government beaucracy, the senior military staff, and parts of top-level finance and industry, who are involved in the largely unreported and uncountable manipulation or control of government policy. It is not a conspiracy theory, despite what the anti-Trump Lamestream Enemedia so raucously claims. It’s a long-established and proven fact or, at least, the political science is settled on this matter and the debate over its existence is over.

Three fine books on this Deep State, Shadow Government, State Within a State, or Double Government are: What Washington Get Wrong by Jennifer Bachner and Benjamin Ginsberg, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government by Mike Lofgren, and National Security and Double Government by Michael J. Glennon.

Each year unelected federal administrators write thousands of regulations possessing the force of law. What do these civil servants know about the American people whom they ostensibly serve? Not much, according to this enlightening and disturbing study.

The authors surveyed federal agency officials, congressional and White House staffers, and employees of various and sundry policy-making organizations about their attitudes toward- and knowledge of the public. They found a gaping chasm between what D.C. officials assume they know about average Americans and the actual opinions and attitudes of those average Americans.

~*~

In a nutshell, the Deep State as longtime Republican party insider, Mike Lofgren describes it is a combination of elected and appointed members of the legislative and executive branches; and corporate insiders, especially the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley. Together, fueled by enormous amounts of money, they effectively control the country, regardless of which party is in power or the wishes of the electorate.

Drawing on insights gleaned over three decades on Capitol Hill, much of it on the Budget Committee, Lofgren paints a gripping portrait of the dismal swamp on the Potomac that our government has become.

~*~

National security policy in the United States has remained largely constant from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. This continuity can be explained by the “double government” theory of 19th-century scholar of the English Constitution, Walter Bagehot. As applied to the United States, Bagehot’s theory suggests that US national security policy is defined by the network of unelected executive officials who manage the departments and agencies responsible for protecting US national security and who, responding to structural incentives embedded in the US political system, operate largely removed from the public’s view and from constitutional constraints.

The public may in large believe that the constitutionally-established institutions control the laws and public policy, but that belief is both unfounded and mistaken. Judicial review is negligible; congressional oversight is dysfunctional; and presidential control is normally nominal at best. People and whole organizations that were created and staffed without the People’s input treat politicians of all sorts as individual impediments that will in most cases be highly temporary.

To put it in perspective one way, in 2014, 3,291 pages of new laws were passed by Congress – the sole branch of government with the constitutional authority to make law – and signed by the President. During this same period, unelected bureaucrats at dozens of federal departments and agencies issued 79,066 pages of new and updated regulations. Hence, unelected and only marginally accountable bureaucrats enacted approximately 24 times the pages of regulations that operate by and large with the full force of law that Congress enacted actual laws.

To put it in perspective in another way, for years since 9/11, the CIA has kept and utilized a fully armed fleet of drones, mostly Predators and Reapers. They have literally made an unknown number of lethal strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. I say an unknown number because any such strikes by the CIA are classified as Title 50 covert actions and the government cannot by law provide any information about how the CIA conducts targeted killings. Even the majority of Congress is disallowed oversight or complete analysis of these operations.

The Deep State

Frankly, if they weren’t deranged and damaged, the hypocrisy of the Liberals and Progressives over the existence and their current denial of existence would be equally maddening and amusing. Have they not spent whole generations complaining about Big Oil, Wall Street, Big Ag, the Military-Industrial Complex, and Big Ag essentially owning the government no matter who is elected to office? Have the American people not had to hear them rant about the Koch brothers and ALEC since 2008?

It seems to me that they’ve been complaining about the Deep State for decades. They just didn’t use or know the right term to use for it. But now that Pres. Trump and the American people complain about it, their mindless rejection and cognitive dissonance forces them to deny it and what they’ve been ranting about and against for at least the last half century.

Deep Government - Certainly a Double Government if not quite a State Within a State

No, the Deep State is quite real. It’s not just some conspiracy theory and it’s not something that President Trump and/or White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon cooked up, though they did drag the actual term out of the “hallowed” halls of academia and into the light of day. The government is more than what you see. It’s roots run both deep and far and are largely hidden from sight. Or, said another way dearer to my heart, Prof. Glennon ‘s Madisonian Institutions that we see are just like mushrooms; they’re just the visible, fruiting body but the rhizomes make up the bulk of the fungus, do most of the work of keeping it alive, and are perpetually hidden from sight.

Being real, however, doesn’t automatically means that they constitute a subterranean web of common and nefarious purpose. One, the various groups don’t normally have a common purpose with each other. Two, whether or not any of those purposes are truly nefarious is a matter of supposition, perspective, and one’s value judgements.

At the end of each and every day, these bureaucrats have their own interests just like the rest of is. They want to keep their jobs, above all. They wouldn’t have gone into the bureaucracy in the first place if job security wasn’t of tantamount importance to them. They will whenever possible act in ways to ensure that job security and will ally themselves with anyone and any policy which they perceive to enhance it. They will also work against and ally with those who also against whatever might infringe upon their job security.

And that brings us to President Trump. Part of his platform was to “drain the swamp” that is the federal government. Pres. Trump even issued two significant Executive Orders (EO 13771 and EO 13777) which focus this draining squarely upon the various agencies who employ these unelected bureaucrats. Such act directly threaten those people’s job security. Hence, it’s hardly unreasonable that would they be and act as they could against him as they could.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Yes, They’re Muslims

While any and all Americans can expect certain sorts of grifters, e.g., the Obamas, to lie and proclaim that the many and sundry Jihadis and Muslims terrorists aren’t Islamic, the rank hypocrisy and arrogant stupidity of the rank and file Liberals and Progressives is what is truly maddening.

identity-matters

Yes, Jihadis Are Muslims
(Click to Enlarge)

Worse, they don’t even see or hear their own hypocrisy; nor will they understand the allegory in the image above – though they will declaim me as racist anyway.

It’s a crying shame that they’re unlikely to ever be in a position to voice their views face-to-face with a jihadi. I’d pay good money to watch that and wouldn’t consider the jihadi’s response to be wrong in any way, though I might critique their technique.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Certifiably Liberal

One thing to remember – when working within a sociopolitical context, contagion is bidirectional. It almost, but not quite, mimics osmotic transfer. Hence, just as the modern, corrupted form of Liberalism infected the educational system, the worst attitudes and preconceptions of educational system infected Liberalism.

Ape Think While Nation Burns
Our Intelligentsia In Inaction

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that the elitism and pseudo-technocratic prejudices and insecurities of the intelligentsia aka America’s cleristry would strongly color the Liberal response to dissent against their doctrine and dogma.

David Jetre sums this up quite well:

“So, tell me: are you a physicist? Do you have a degree in chemistry? Or a doctorate in infrared or ultraviolet light, spectroscopy, or associated sciences? Have you performed extensive studies into exothermic reactions, combustion, heat or light? Are you a state-licensed firefighter or other extensively trained rescuer? Have you written or published a single peer-reviewed paper on the flame (the visible part of the fire) or how the gases therein might become ionized to produce plasma? Do you even know plasma theory? No! Then how are you even remotely qualified in any way to say the house is on fire?” asked the Liberal.

“Because the house is on fire, dumb ass, and is burning to the ground,” said the Conservative.

And there you have it, an apt and near perfect parable of how the intersectionality between the Intelligentsia and the Liberals view dissent by Americans against their agendas. In their minds only the “properly” qualified and certified people are allowed to comment. The rest – we groundlings and churls – must remain silent if and when we disagree with what our “betters” tell us lest we be charged as “Deniers” and anti-intellectuals by these educated elites for defying the rightness and validity of their self-proclaimed magisterium.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |

A Cold Season’s Greeting

Christmastide in America is supposed to be about warmth, caring, and family, yet that’s wasn’t in any way, shape, or form the tone, nuance, or feeling of the Obamas’ “Holiday” card.

Obama's Un-Christmas Card
A Cold Season’s Greeting From The Obamas

It’s more than a little ironic that the card references, “the warmth and joy of the holidays” when its design and message is so cold, empty, and aloof. In fact it’s so ironic that, if I didn’t know better, I’d say that the Obama’s were courting the Hipster vote.

It’s colors are cool, not warm, which seems to refute the warmth that Christmas brings to people in the dark of winter. It shows a vacant building, which seems symbolic when one considers that Obama invariable answer to all the scandals revealed in the past year is to disclaim knowledge or responsibility. And lastly, despite going out at Christmas time and despite Obama’s claims to be a Christian, the card makes no mention of Christmas.

Still, this is what one has to expect from the Obamas. They are neither Americans nor Christians so whatever card they approved wasn’t ever going to glorify either the American idea of Christmas or the Christian one. Even the overall tone of the card should have been expected as it perfectly summates the elitist, aloof, above-it-all attitude that Obama has displayed since being installed into office.

Tags: | | | | | | | |

Spare The Rod…

There’s an old axiom based upon Biblical advice that states that goes, “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” It has, along with most forms of parental discipline, fallen out of favor in modern, Western society.

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Proverbs 13:24, the Bible (KJV)

~*~

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

Proverbs 23: 13-14, the Bible (KJV)

Let’s leave the question of whether or not discipline benefit the child aside for the moment and consider a new proverb, “Spare the rod and raise a douchebag.”

Spare The Rod And Raise A Douchebag

Really! As David Hochman asks and answers, is current indulgent parenting spawning a generation of entitled hipster brats?

Let us begin with the assumption that if you are a parent, you wish for your child every advantage and opportunity. From the ergonomic high chair to that all-important first sushi experience and beyond, life should be as golden for your little one as it is for, say, Pax Jolie-Pitt.

But inevitably the moment arrives when all your doting and care come back on you in the form of a precocious little barb that reminds you in no uncertain terms of . . . you. It might be that his friend Jake’s eighth-birthday party was “unbelievably lame” or that “it’s weird that Brandon’s family flies first-class and we don’t,” or maybe it’s simply that “these taquitos taste like turd.”

It’s then that you must reckon with the real possibility that your drive to make little Johnny better, smarter, and hipper has merely turned him into a douchebag.

Now Mr. Hochman focuses on the evils of the Liberal urban elites, which is not entirely fair since the problem and problematic end results are endemic across many socio-economic strata of Western society, though the motives of the parents are likely to differ based upon economics, race, and culture. Yet it’s not particularly unfair either since these Liberal urban elites are set up as something akin to role models by the media and have the power to affect laws and policies in ways that make any form of parental discipline impossible or risky.

Now don’t get me wrong, with the surprisingly success of Reality TV, there’s obviously going to be a continuing job market for douchebags, but is raising your progeny to be fit for only that one job such a good idea, especially at the cost of the rest of us having to either put up with them or put them down?

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |