RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2024/12/01/what-is-the-administrative-state/

Last week in this virtual space, I wrote that Donald Trump would make a renewed effort during his second term to dismantle “the administrative state.” As in his first term, he would employ various strategies to blunt the effects of the administrative apparatus that governs us. He would, for example, disperse some parts of the government outside the overwhelmingly left-progressive swamp of Washington, D.C.

As an aside, I should note that I regard the persistence of Washington as the seat of our government as a serious impediment to the goal of “deconstructing” the administrative state. “It has,” I wrote back in 2022, “long been obvious to candid observers that there is something deeply dysfunctional about that overwhelmingly Democratic, welfare-addicted city.”

It is a partisan sinkhole. Jefferson wanted the capital moved from New York to Washington in part to bring it closer to the South, but also to place it in a locality that was officially neutral. There is nothing neutral about Washington today. The city has some impressive architecture and urban vistas. They should be preserved and staffed as tourist attractions. But the reins of power should be relocated.

I doubt that will happen. Which means that the eternal vigilance that MAGA must maintain around its enemies will have to be redoubled. Trump attempting to govern from Washington will be like Ike trying to undertake the Normandy invasion with half his planners on loan from the German general staff.

Still, there are some symbolic gestures that he and his aides might consider. I have long suggested that the inauguration be held somewhere other than Washington, D.C. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the inauguration be in Washington. LBJ, remember, was sworn in on Air Force One just a couple of hours after Kennedy was assassinated. When Warren Harding died, Calvin Coolidge was visiting the family homestead in Vermont. His father, a justice of the peace, administered the oath of office in the parlor. I think the next inauguration should be well away from the swamp of Washington. Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach is one venue that springs to mind, but I am sure there are other attractive spots. At a minimum, I hope the inauguration committee will consider having some of the parties elsewhere. A ball in Butler, PA, for example, would not only be celebratory but also serve as a useful reminder of how close Trump came to a fatal encounter with an assassin’s bullet.

https://nypost.com/2024/11/28/opinion/we-should-be-thankful-that-the-future-is-in-trumps-hands-and-not-harris/

This Thanksgiving we got a reminder of what might-have-been. And what we have been unburdened by.

We should be truly grateful.

For this was the week in which Kamala Harris broke her post-election silence. And I think anyone who saw it can agree: the vice president is not doing well.

In an almost 10-minute-long word salad, the former presidential candidate told her supporters such things as: “You have the same power that you did before November 5, and you have the same purpose that you did. And you have the same ability to engage and inspire, so don’t ever let anybody or any circumstance take your power from you.”

The only thing that made Harris’ message different from a late-night conversation with a very drunk friend was that at no point did Harris actually say “I love you guys” and then burst out weeping.

But it was a reminder of how close this country came to a decline that other countries are experiencing.

Back in my native Britain this past summer the public elected a Labour government that, like Kamala, doesn’t seem to have any idea of what it is doing. Or what it could do.

They are currently working out how to kill off the citizenry with euthanasia. But as for plans to grow the economy, secure the borders or improve living standards? Nope. Not an idea in sight.

https://nypost.com/2024/11/27/opinion/the-fbi-and-dojs-politically-motivated-persecution-of-a-former-informant-all-to-protect-the-bidens/

One of the most disturbing scandals of the Hunter Biden saga is the imprisonment without trial of former FBI informant Alexander Smirnov. 

The Ukrainian-born Israeli-American, who once told his FBI handler about Ukrainian claims of a $10 million bribe to the Bidens, has been languishing in a Los Angeles prison for nine months on charges that he lied to the FBI. 

Last week, federal prosecutors slapped new tax-evasion charges on Smirnov, 43, which suggests they know their original indictment is too weak for a jury to convict him when he faces trial beginning Jan. 8. 

Smirnov was one of the FBI’s most trusted confidential human sources, paid more than $100,000 during what his lawyers call “undivided, years-long loyalty to the United States” before he was thrown to the wolves in the middle of the Biden impeachment inquiry. 

Busted in February 

He was arrested in February on charges that he “provided false derogatory information to the FBI in 2020 about Joseph Biden, who at the time was a candidate for president and had previously been the vice president. 

“The alleged false information concerned Joseph Biden’s and his son Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma Holdings Ltd., a Ukrainian energy business.” 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-do-dems-solve-a-problem-like-kamala/

After inflicting one of the most financial and electoral defeats on the Democrats, Kamala is still around and still barraging supporters with endless texts pleading for money.

The Kamala campaign is still burning through its list, allegedly to pay off a $20 million debt, but it’s hard to believe that it hasn’t covered that already.

The Harris Fight Fund is sending out messages asking for money to “organize against Trump’s radical cabinet appointments” and to “start building the critical resources we need to hold Trump accountable these next four years.”

Now the whole thing might be a scam to suck up more money, but with 41% of Democrats putting Kamala’s name in the box for the 2028 nomination, and with Kamala exploring options that may include running for governor, it’s pretty clear that she’s not going away and she’s building up yet another campaign war chest.

Dems need Kamala to go away, but how do they do that?

Dems couldn’t make Kamala go away in 2024 with devastating consequences. If they can’t make her go away in 2025, things are likely to get worse.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/11/29/a-top-priority-for-the-musk-ramaswamy-doge-commission-decentralizing-the-federal-government/

One of the best ideas I heard from Donald Trump for his second term is to move as many as 100,000 federal employees to “new locations outside the Washington Swamp” to places “filled with patriots who love America.” This initiative will save tax dollars and help depoliticize federal agencies. There also are important security and fairness reasons to relocate these agencies across the United States.

I speak from experience. In the early 1990s, the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) drafted legislation to move thousands of CIA employees to West Virginia. Bryd proposed closing 21 CIA offices in Washington, DC, and its Virginia and Maryland suburbs and moving them to large campuses in Jefferson County, West Virginia.

My wife and I were CIA employees at the time, and we were thrilled about the potential move of our office out of the DC area. We were unable to afford a house without a lengthy commute on our federal salaries because the large presence of federal workers and contractors had driven housing prices through the roof. (Five of the seven wealthiest U.S. counties are in the DC suburbs.) We also disliked the liberal culture and high taxes of the DC area.

Unfortunately, the Washington establishment, including many well-paid senior CIA officers and contractors, blocked Senator Byrd’s attempt to relocate CIA offices to West Virginia. As a result, when my wife could no longer work full-time because of the disability of one of our children, we ended up buying a house 50 miles from DC with a roundtrip commute of 2.5 to 3 hours per day.

Moving federal agencies out of the DC area to areas with affordable housing and reasonable commutes are two good reasons why the Trump administration should decentralize the federal government. The current practice of locating these agencies within a few miles of the White House and Congress reflects a bygone era before telephones, email, and video conferences. Most federal employees rarely interact with members of Congress and the White House and can do their jobs more efficiently and economically in more affordable and less congested areas of the country.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-forever-tarnished-legacy-of-barack-obama/

Among the many benefits of Donald Trump’s re-election that our nation and the world are already experiencing is the forever tarnished legacy of Barack Obama. In 2028, will the Democrat candidate want Obama to go on the campaign trail for him or her? I doubt it.

Obama’s Un-enduring Influence

When he was elected president (assuming that massive Democratic cheating was not in full swing in 2008), Democrats held a commanding 55- to 45-seat majority in the U.S. Senate and an overwhelming 256- to 179-seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

By the time Obama left office on January 20, 2017, Democrats were down nine seats in the Senate and a whopping 62 seats in the House – they lost the majority in each chamber. Among the 50 states, there were twelve fewer Democrat governors. You’d have to look back more than 95 years to see when the Democrats did so poorly at the polls on a national and state level.

For all the mainstream media blather heaped upon Obama as some kind of political savior, at the end of his two terms, he left the Democratic Party in shambles. However, he has personally benefitted financially in extraordinary ways.

Considering the “Obama effect” on the nation’s vote totals, is any sane Democrat willing to extol the virtues of his influence on the electorate?

https://www.city-journal.org/article/doge-theory

One of the most intriguing developments following Donald Trump’s election victory has been the announcement of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The initiative, which hopes to cut up to $2 trillion from the federal budget, has generated notable excitement, momentum, and memes. The world’s richest man and a successful biotech entrepreneur, Ramaswamy, have revitalized what seemed to be a mostly dormant libertarianism, drawing on the inspiration of Milton Friedman and promising to slash the bureaucracy to the bone. But what are its prospects for real-world success?

Elon Musk is our era’s most gifted entrepreneur, having revolutionized several industries and run multiple major companies. But the private sector operates on radically different principles than the public sector, which has a way of stalling or disarming even the most determined efforts. I foresee three potential impediments to DOGE’s success.

First is the problem of authority. While President-elect Trump has dubbed the effort the “Department of Government Efficiency,” it is not a government department at all. Rather, Musk and Ramaswamy will remain in the private sector and preside over what is, in effect, a blue-ribbon committee providing recommendations to the president and to Congress about potential cuts. In practice, though, blue-ribbon committees are often where ideas go to die. Politicians who feel the need to “do something” about a given problem often establish such committees to create the perception of action, which masks their true desire or, at least, the eventual result: inaction.

DOGE’s challenge will be to translate its recommendations into policy. It is almost certain that an entrepreneur of Musk’s ambition will not be content with writing a report. His and Ramaswamy’s task, then, is to persuade the president and the director of the Office of Management and Budget to enact real (and politically risky) cuts, and, if possible, to persuade Congress to abolish entire departments, such as the Department of Education, in the face of left-wing backlash.

The second problem for Musk and Ramaswamy is public opinion. Libertarians and small-government conservatives have long promised to reduce the size of government; one reason that they have never done so is that federal programs and agencies are generally popular. All of the major federal departments, with the exception of the IRS, the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice, have net-positive favorability numbers. Congressional members, even conservative Republicans, fear that slashing these departments would expose them to savage criticism from the Left and backlash from voters. They know that Americans complain about the size of government in theory but oppose almost all spending cuts in practice—the key paradox that libertarians have been unable to resolve.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-taps-jay-bhattacharya-for-nih

Four years ago, Jay Bhattacharya was ostracized by his colleagues at Stanford and censored on social media platforms thanks to a campaign against him by the public-health establishment. The director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, sent an email to another NIH official, Anthony Fauci, urging a “quick and devastating published takedown” of Bhattacharya and his fellow “fringe epidemiologists.” 

Bhattacharya is far from the fringe today. Donald Trump nominated him this week for Collins’s old job, director of the NIH. Assuming the Senate confirms him, it will be a major victory for science and academic freedom—and a serious threat to the universities that suppressed scientific debate and promoted disastrous policies during the pandemic, causing public trust in science to plummet. Academic researchers and administrators have mostly refused to acknowledge their mistakes, much less make amends, but Bhattacharya promised yesterday to “reform American scientific institutions so that they are worthy of trust again.” 

As NIH director, he would wield a potent tool to induce reform: money. Stanford and more than a dozen other universities each get more than $500 million annually in grants from the NIH, the world’s largest funder of biomedical research. The NIH grants support not only researchers but also their universities’ bureaucracies, which collect a hefty surcharge to cover supposed overhead costs. The federal largesse has helped finance the administrative bloat at universities, including the expansion of diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracies under the Biden administration, which took into account a university’s commitment to DEI principles when deciding whether to award grants from the NIH and other agencies.  

Those priorities are about to change. Trump has vowed to rescind immediately Biden’s executive order directing federal agencies to promote DEI. During his first term, Trump threatened to issue an executive order barring universities from receiving federal funds if they suppressed free speech. He didn’t issue that order, but whether or not he does so in his next term, the NIH director will already have the power to consider a university’s commitment to academic freedom in deciding whether or not to award funds. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/celebrate-diversity-or-else/

Somewhere along the line the Democratic Party went from “celebrate diversity” to “CELEBRATE DIVERSITY OR ELSE, YOU BIGOT!” They lost the American public – that was perfectly happy to acknowledge firsts and applaud people who achieved them – once the demanded conformity and the bastardizing of reality. And now we find ourselves fighting to keep reality in our public spaces and men out of the ladies’ room.

If you could travel back in time just a few years and tell your younger self that one political party would be fighting tooth and nail to make sure a man in a dress is treated like they were your mother, you’d have your older-self committed. Yet, that’s where the Democrats have led society.

When Delaware elected the first “trans-woman” to Congress, a man named Tim McBride who now goes by Sarah, you knew a conflict was coming between Democrats and reality. See, McBride is one of those leftists who want to be celebrated for existing in a way the left deems important. We normal people are not worthy of celebration for our existence, and most of our accomplishments are diminished because of our skin color, our sexuality or political beliefs – the same reason Democrats celebrate their chosen groups.

As a “trans woman,” the left insists, McBride is a “real woman.” Every bit as real a woman as your sister, your wife, your mother – you can tell by the way a hyphenate is required to explain the penis.

It’s insanity, of course, but people can live insanely if they so choose. What they don’t have is the right to force everyone else to live in crazyland with them.

I’m not saying be rude – Tim changed his name to Sarah, so I’d call him Sarah – but I’m not going to pretend he’s a woman or use whatever pronouns he decrees as the only acceptable ones to use in reference to him.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/11/the_reality_of_racial_balancing_and_the_fight_for_equal_protection.html

In Don Lemon’s edgy interview with Elon Musk that ended his talk-show deal with X, Lemon baits the billionaire entrepreneur, asking: “Do you believe women and minority pilots are inherently less intelligent and less skilled than white male pilots?”

Without blinking, Musk hits home with: “No. I’m just saying we should not lower the standards for them.”

When Lemon pursues the point, claiming no evidence of standards being lowered, Musk retorts that there is cited evidence of “significant cases where standards are lowered.”  

Lemon then changes tack. He says Boeing had admitted that a faulty door panel was responsible for the incident being discussed. Musk, matter-of-factly, points out that a recently introduced DEI-related incentive structure at Boeing should have focused on passenger safety.

DEI – diversity, equity, and inclusion.  As American institutions intensify their push for “DEI hires and appointments,” the three words threaten – and, in many cases, have become an excuse to violate — the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states: “No state can deny equal protection under the law to any person within its jurisdiction.”  

The reality of DEI is that diversity is being used to justify racial discrimination against majority whites and high-achieving minorities, equity is being used to achieve equal outcomes instead of providing equal opportunities, and inclusion is being used to exclude people who oppose the ideology du jour.  Merit, hard work, initiative, and innovation be damned.