Category Archives: The State

NEW COLUMN: Trump Fends Off ‘Showboat’ Comey And The Federal Zombies

Business, Donald Trump, Russia, The State

“Trump Fends Off ‘Showboat’ Comey And The Federal Zombies” is the current column, now on American Thinker. An excerpt:

He pleaded the case of a loyal soldier, rather than forsake retired US Army lieutenant general Michael Flynn to the mercies of FBI director James Comey. And he asked for loyalty from the congenitally disloyal. You’ll agree: President Donald Trump is being indicted on technicalities and on personal style.

Distill the president’s unremarkable actions, subject to a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, and it becomes clear that The establishment—for sensible people outside the beltway have dissociate from the Russia-collusion phantasmagoria—is indicting him on the plain, impolitic speech that catapulted Donald Trump from candidate to president.

Trump is “aggressive and oblivious to the rules of engagement,” fumed CNN’s sibilant Chris Cillizza, formerly of the Washington Post. Correct. But was the language of combat you deployed, Mr. Cillizza, a Freudian slip?

The president’s linguistic infelicities—a word salad, at times—have given the press popinjays and their Washington overlords the foothold needed to go after the president. Throw in the “bad” habits of a businessman he has retained. Trump transacts with everyone—Russians too. We voted for deals, not wars.

This is the sum and substance of President Trump’s offenses. That, and beating Hillary Clinton to the White House.

Proponents of free-markets understand how business operates. Statists don’t. To the statist, the Fake News fabricator and the stark raving mad Washington Post (WaPo), “Trump sitting next to Russian Ambassador Yuri Dubinin, at a luncheon hosted by Leonard Lauder, the oldest son of Estée Lauder,” in 1986, is incriminating evidence … of something.

The tidbit made it on to a sinister WaPo list, “Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests.” To the same statists, Trump “meeting with Russian businessmen, including a real estate developer,” in 2013, “while in Moscow for his Miss Universe competition,” is yet more circumstantial evidence of … something.

Citizen Trump was bringing a fun event to Russia! To members of the American media-military-congressional-industrial complex, being amicable with foreign interests is a foreign concept. At the same time, he did some business there. Inconceivable! Had Mr. Trump smuggled a dirty bomb into Russia, under the “clever” guise of pursuing commerce, his militant enemies stateside might forgive him today. The tools threatening President Trump with impeachment have one bag of tricks stuffed with power tools: they audit, indict, arrest, bomb, change regimes. They don’t make profitable business deals; they tax them. They don’t make peace; they wage war.

Prone to seeing faces in the clouds, the reporters—they’ve lost their minuscule minds—frame the act of putting in a kind word for “a good guy,” as Trump did in February 2017, for Gen. Michael Flynn, as an obstruction of justice. …

READ the rest. “Trump Fends Off ‘Showboat’ Comey And The Federal Zombies” is the current column, now on American Thinker.

Deep State Establishment Vs. The Aristocratic Republic The Founders Bequeathed

America, BAB's A List, Communism, Constitution, Democracy, Donald Trump, Federalism, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Government, History, Intelligence, The State

By Dr. Boyd D. Cathey

Who is former CIA director William Brennan? Here is what the Wikipedia says of him: In 1976, he voted for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall in the presidential election; he later said that he viewed it as a way “of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change.”  Despite that and despite what such actions denote, he has been involved in the most sensitive of US intelligence work and in the CIA for twenty-five years, serving directly as a personal intelligence advisor in the administration  of Bill Clinton, and, as a staunch Obama supporter, appointed to head the CIA in 2013.

This fact puts into context an element of the present multifaceted  assault on the Trump presidency, and, indeed, of a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down that presidency.

The Deep State establishment wants us to do our thing—pay bills, pay taxes, take the children to school, watch ESPN, mow the grass, maybe go to church, but mainly stay away from getting involved in the “big issues” of really deciding how this country is run. That is their thing: making executive decisions at the top of the food chain, running this nation, conducting its foreign affairs, enacting its domestic policy, lining their pockets, and passing legislation that most of us never hear about until it hits us in the face—or in the pocket book. It’s not exactly an old fashioned dictatorship, but neither is it the republic that our ancestors or the Founders of this nation envisaged, either.

Certainly, those men who assembled to draft our Constitution some 230 years ago did not believe in a “peoples’ democracy.” For them, the republic they gave us did have tiers and gradations, such that those with the most involvement and interest in the new nation would also have the most direct influence. Thus each of the thirteen states had a plethora of property requirements and age requirements, as well as religious tests: all these came together to insure a high level of participation from those who had those interests.

So, what then is the difference between then and now? Do we not still have an aristocracy that, in effect, runs the country?

The issue here is rather the nature of government and how it is construed and operated. Our Founders considered the aristocratic republic they established to be a natural development, based firmly in the deepest traditions and inherited beliefs of the citizens of the new nation. The new constitution would represent an organic “moment” in which the new United States would crystallize its history, reaffirm its British heritage of law and justice. It was, then, not a revolutionary moment, but one cementing a link and connection to the past, to rights that went back to Magna Carta, to Rome, Athens, and, yes, Jerusalem.

It was also intended to be transparent, in that this constitutional arrangement, with its mix of the traditions of aristocracy and limited democratic participation, was not hidden from view. Nor was it intended to be. Americans knew what they were getting. Of course, there were debates over aspects of the founding, and there were disputes, seen most particularly in the several state conventions in the 1820s and 1830s, about whether we wanted to move further in the direction of “democracy” or not.

A major concern of the Founders was the effect wealth might have in influencing elections. They wanted to avoid impropriety as much as possible, to make such concerns as public as they were able.  While they foresaw that men of great affluence might gain advantage, imposing set property conditions and the accumulated weight of traditions, custom, and a sense of deference they believed, could offset such dangers. And, very importantly, they wished that local and states’ rights act as a major counter-balance to eventual encroachments attempted by the Federal government. In other words, they posited what Catholic theorists term “subsidiarity,” that is, what can be done on a lower level of governance, ought to be done on that level and not on a higher level. A whole series of layers of intermediate organisms, families, communities, states, would insulate citizens from overweening powers emanating from Washington.

But, as was stated more than once, the republican “experiment” depended largely on the virtue of its citizenry.

Contrast this now with what acute observers like James Burnham (e.g., The Managerial Revolution) and Samuel Francis (e.g., Leviathan) have starkly noted about the modern United States, about how unelected and largely unseen “managers,” technocrats, and political operatives have in a real sense taken over both the electoral process as well as the running of government, forming a new, “hidden” kleptocracy, of those who answer to no one, and whose tenure is unlimited.  It is, thus, an ugly and grasping inverted mirror of the model the Founders envisaged.

And since 1865 those protective, intermediate layers—states’ rights, local controls, our liberties—have succumbed, one by one, to the power of the Federal state which seems to increasingly suck the lifeblood out of society. We now are face-to-face, far too often, with the full power and threats of a Federal bureaucracy which seems to know no limits. Those unseen managers, the Deep State establishment, will brook no real opposition. If it should appear, it is either tamed and bought off, or squelched.

Enter Donald J. Trump and an agenda that promised to “drain the swamps,” and a very rude awakening in last November’s election. For the Deep State establishment it could not—must not—be permitted to stand. And thus we come to today, all the chimerical controversy about how the “Russians did it,” and how that uncouth ruffian in the White House needs to be taken down a peg or two, surrounded by “experienced advisors,” or perhaps removed from office, toute suite!

This process has in effect torn the lying mask off the face of the Deep State, and most particularly, its advance panzer units, the Mainstream Media. A recent study completed by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy [May 18] has analyzed media coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office. Here is what was found:

CBS, CNN, NBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. All six portrayed Trump’s first 100 days in highly unfavorable terms. CNN and NBC’s coverage was the most unrelenting—negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks. Trump’s coverage on CBS also exceeded the 90 percent mark. Trump’s coverage exceeded the 80 percent level in The New York Times (87 percent negative) and The Washington Post (83 percent negative). The Wall Street Journal came in below that level (70 percent negative), a difference largely attributable to the Journal’s more frequent and more favorable economic coverage.

Even Fox scarcely gave the president more than 50% favorable coverage.

Add to this the unrelenting assaults by Democrats, academia, Hollywood, and various skittish Republicans and NeverTrump Neoconservatives, and we can see the massive offensive against not just President Trump, but even more, against the “drain the swamps” agenda that brought him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in the first place.

More than once I have called for a massive response to this massive offensive. I have stated that while winning this past November 8 was a mini-miracle, extremely difficult to achieve, “winning the victory” would be even harder. And, certainly, it is proving to be so.

*****

~ Dr. Boyd D. Cathey is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.

Trump Today (5/18): A Nod To Neocon Joe Lieberman & The Mythologizing Of Mueller

Donald Trump, Intelligence, John McCain, Neoconservatism, The State, War

POTUS had edged closer to picking Joe Lieberman, John McCain’s evil twin, to direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The old “I saw into his heart and it was good” balderdash. They bonded. Silly me. I had imagined that candidate Trump had “bonded” with the American people and would remember their wishes once THEY MADE HIM president.

Lieberman and America First: never the twain shall meet.

Lieberman is a neoconservative by any other name, committed to McCain’s national-greatness through perpetual war.

Next, Republicans are either seriously dumb or serious about wanting to end the Trump presidency and promise (although the two GOP facets are not mutually exclusive). They’ve joined the Democrats in mythologizing “former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel in charge of the FBI’s investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election,” a synonym for killing the Trump presidency. The president, or course, has done his fair share of that.

Ultimately Mueller is Deep State, he’s always been Managerial State material, heart and mind.

Mueller thinks like those unelected bureaucrats, intelligence officers and military men seeking to unelect Donald Trump think.

On The Deep State (Damn Straight!), Comey’s Memo To Self & Ongoing Media Cadenza

BAB's A List, Conservatism, Donald Trump, Intelligence, Law, Media, Neoconservatism, Russia, The State

By Dr. Boyd D. Cathey. (Warning to the congenitally dour: humor and Southern idiom and imagery ahead.)

Some pundits and writers on the Left and within the Deep State political and cultural pentagon deny that there is such a thing as the “Deep State.” In recent days I’ve read a couple of Mainstream Media [MSM] columnists who simply dismiss such an idea. “No,” they say with mock seriousness, “what you see—those of us self-erected ‘big shots’ in the political class and the self-perpetuating bureaucracy in Washington, the financial globalists, the Hollywood elites, the educational establishment—we aren’t really a ‘state-within-a state’. You just need to be quiet, go back to your workaday professions, and leave governing, educating your children, and producing your entertainment, to us. It’s above your pay grade.”

Let me translate, “we are your masters and you are the sheep—shut up and don’t ask questions and don’t even think about any real influence in the destiny of this nation.” And even more simply stated: “We are the managerial elite, you are the deplorables.” Seems we have heard that word before….

But only a few minutes watching the hysterical MSM yesterday, in addition to occasioning a severe case of nausea, would have convinced even the most casual and uninterested viewer that the “chattering class” of this nation had literally gone berserk, in ideological and linguistic lock-step—almost as if some hidden “Wizard of Oz,” behind the curtain, had given the punditry a strict talking points memo. The non-existent “Deep State” had once again bared its teeth, and the unmistakable reality of its suffocating presence sank in.

Over on CNN, leftist wing nut Chris Cilizza jumped, like a tick on a freshly-bathed dog, on the purported “news” that back in February, during a private meeting between President Trump and former FBI head James Comey, the president urged Comey to “let the [Michael] Flynn investigation go.” Then, according to—as always—an “unnamed” source who telephoned The News York Times right after that, Comey drafted a “memo to self,” more or less, recounting this his version of what happened. “Obstruction of justice!” Cilizza screamed. “Impeachment moment!” echoed the other programmed automatons in the MSM. “The end of the Trump presidency!” shrieked ABC, MSNBC, CBS, ad nauseum.

“Obstruction of Justice?” First, the White House has pushed back hard on this convenient “after-thought” by Comey. If he thought it were an attempted “obstruction of justice” way back in February, why wasn’t it made public way back then? Why weren’t the appropriate congressional committees notified? Additionally, when the president and Comey met, Flynn had already been cleared by the FBI of any criminal action. Even if President Trump had suggested that Comey try to “move on,” how in any sense, legally or otherwise, can this be considered “obstruction”? That term, legally, implies action to prevent, to hinder, or to subvert an investigation or process. So, even if Comey’s “recollection” has any truth to it—and that is debatable—the only thing that has happened here is that the MSM has had another cardiac moment, another “impeachment moment” day dream.

The mind-numbing programmed MSM and their Democratic allies remind me of disjointed Bloodhounds who race frantically from deceptive scented clue to deceptive scented clue, but without ever catching their prey… because there is nothing there, there. The “Russians did it” template is fake and false, made up out of whole cloth by the Clintonistas after Hillary’s loss. And very likely, as we now know, the theft of over 44,000 Democratic National Committee emails was committed by Seth Rich, a disaffected DNC staffer who had access, who was enraged by the pro-Hillary sandbagging of Bernie Sanders. Of course, just a few days after Rich did that, he wound up murdered. And despite the fact that nothing was taken from him—not his wallet full of cash or his expensive necklace—the DC police department (with orders from up high) and FBI (and the Clinton folks) continue to say it was an attempted robbery and refuse to cooperate in any further investigation.

Just the same old Washington DC, the same old politics. And they want us to think that the “Deep State” doesn’t really exist?
And too many Republicans and so-called “conservatives” either buy into that template, serving as fifth columnists, or, at a minimum, go along to prevent that kind of full-fledged assault on them that is now being inflicted on Donald Trump, his administration, and his agenda.

One of the most notorious fellow-traveler apologists for the Deep State is neoconservative head honcho and Weekly Standard founder and editor, Bill Kristol. Kristol is one of the fiercest and most intransigent NeverTrumpers, and much like columnist George Will, he continues his ferocious opposition. Most recently Kristol granted an interview to the left wing web site, “Mediaite.” Nothing unusual about that, since the candidacy of Donald Trump has brought dozens of supposedly “conservative” pundits and writers “out of the closet” and revealed what we have known all along: they are, in fact, raving leftists at heart in their basic precepts, and they will do practically anything, work with anybody, even if much further to the left, if they can “get back” at The Donald for his “sin” of challenging their leadership and control of the decadent and dying “Conservative Movement.”

To conclude, I have suggested that we are living now in a hollow, geographical entity officially titled “the United States of America,” but which is definitely NOT united, and where the very concept of “America” has no common acceptance. And the question, then, remains: how is it possible, how can there be a real future for a country where one half wants to literally suppress and obliterate the other half? And, then, those of us scheduled for such suppression—why do we permit so many of our elected representatives to take a dive and go along, and even enable this potentially fatal infection?

Why aren’t millions of us “deplorables” organizing nationally and in each state to challenge the GOP wimp-outs, like Dave Bratt did with Eric Cantor in Virginia? Why aren’t we making our presence known at meetings of leftist congressmen and on campuses? The Deep State—the establishment “swamp”—is in full attack mode. Either we respond, or we disappear as a people, with our traditions, our history, and our faith.

************************

~ Dr. Boyd D. Cathey is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category.