permanent bureaucracy – USA Gov Policy

Welcome to the era of Middle Finger Politics.

Government, as it was conceived by America’s Founding Fathers, was supposed to be constrained within certain limits, transparent, and answerable to the people. It was designed to be responsive to the wishes of the voters as expressed in elections.

However, far too much influence and power are currently retained by a contingent of insiders who move back and forth between elective office and the bureaucracy. Democrats in particular have mastered the art of transferring from key appointed federal bureaucratic positions to life-long tenured permanent titles. The result is that rather than having a federal government that is responsive to the people, it feels free to give them and their wishes the middle finger.

Occasionally, an outsider wins a key election, and when they do, they are faced with a solid phalanx of the elite who attempt to control or destroy the people’s choice. Reagan successfully beat back this opposition in the 1980s, and the result was a revitalized economy and, of course, the fall of the Soviet Union. But the insiders learned their lesson, and now are far more skillful at enforcing their will.

All the power, influence, and resources of the permanent elite united in horror against the election of Donald Trump. Their terror had less to do with his policies than with the fact that he was not a member of their exclusive club.

The elite ignored the reality that China was stealing American jobs on a massive scale because their own investments in Chinese companies were returning a huge profit (for example, the Biden family made a fortune in China) so the President’s move to rein in Beijing’s rapacious policies was a direct slap at them. Their acolytes had jobs in the multitude of federal bureaucratic programs, not in fields like energy, high technology, or military development. When Trump promised to rearrange the budget and federal policy away from welfare programs that failed to stem poverty (but provided numerous bureaucratic jobs) the insiders went to war against him.

Trump’s worst sin, however, was actually doing what he When this happens, the couple should immediately take steps towards levitra 20 mg reigniting their sex lives and unluckily who have not heard about Kamagra. Driving experts always suggest getting http://raindogscine.com/tag/alejo-schettini/ viagra no prescription behind the wheel training from an expert professional. Thus, the magic pill commonly known as canadian viagra pharmacy also called as sildenafil, was brought in the year of 1996 as a safe rescue form of various dangerous health ailments. Flavonoids are http://raindogscine.com/anina-gana-en-anima-mundi-2013-sp/ viagra professional uk naturally occurring Anti-Oxidants that protect plants from toxins and help repair cell damage. promised to do. For far too long, politicians have given the middle finger to the voters: promise everything, but only do what further empowers and enriches themselves when they get elected.

The concept of a nation united in common cause, whether it be to ensure national security, energy independence, or prosperity isn’t one favored by elites because they depend on dividing the population. They do not want us to view each other as fellow Americans, but as warring tribes. Blacks against whites, women against men, middle class vs. the poor, straight against gay, urban dwellers against those in rural areas, and every other division that can be created. Rather than produce actual results, such as a thriving economy or a strong military that deters enemy adventurism, it is far more in their interests to pit us against each other in order to deflect attention from the reality that they oppose the very essence of what the nation is truly all about.

And of course, dilute the very idea of being an American, of being part of a people protected by the Bill of Rights. How to reduce the traditional adherence to that vital document? Bring in vast numbers of foreign peoples who have little knowledge of it. In the great migrations of the past, newcomers were “Americanized,” taught the basics of the United States’ unique culture of freedom. Currently, the elites simultaneously advocate opening the borders to anyone seeking to enter, and reject, as racist, nationalist, or any of a dozen other adjectives, the concept of “Americanizing” them as was done for prior immigrants.

The Founding Fathers enacted safeguards against the eventual rise of the elite. The First Amendment was enacted to allow individuals to openly criticize their elected leaders. The Second Amendment was to provide the population with the means to protect themselves from oppressive government, as well as safeguarding their homes and families without being dependent on government. The Fourth was designed to ensure privacy, and the Sixth to guarantee a fair trial when accused by government of a crime. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are a clear statement that those powers not specifically given to government are retained by the people.

The elitist move to weaken the First Amendment, abolish the Second, and ignore the rest is the ultimate middle finger.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.