Trump's Foreign Policy: The Dogs Bark, but the Caravan . . .

Perhaps it's that great minds think alike, or, perhaps, it's just coincidence. I have started a couple of drafts of a piece on President Trump's foreign policy gains, only to find that a few others have done the same--and probably better. I have vowed not to read anymore of them until I write my own little piece. You can find the competition in National Review, Powerline, and elsewhere.

We have heard a great deal from the media and the bureaucracy about the "hollowing out of the State Department." To give an idea of my thoughts on that, I direct my six readers to the blurb next to "my" photo at the side of this blog:

W. Lewis Amselem, long time US Foreign Service Officer; now retired; served all over the world and under all sorts of conditions. Convinced the State Department needs to be drastically slashed and reformed so that it will no longer pose a threat to the national interests of the United States.

Maybe President Trump read that? Judging from that long-ago written blurb, you could correctly conclude that I do not find it at all alarming to have the State Department asked to do with less. That, friends, is a good thing. We, of course, see moaning about those "deep cuts" to the State Department budget that will "gut" our diplomacy. Rubbish. Even with "deep cuts" the budget for State/AID remains in the $40 billion ballpark, which is a pretty big ballpark. The U.S. Foreign Service consists of over 8,000 diplomats, another over 7,500 "specialists," e.g., support personnel, plus AID officers, and a smattering of people from other agencies, such as the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce. In addition, 11-12,000 Civil Service employees work for State, most but not all in Washington, DC. So State has some 28,000 or more full-time employees, plus contractors, interns, and so on. That's a well-staffed Army division. That's a lot of people. That's too many people.

I long have held that you could cut this workforce by about one-third in a flash, and nobody would notice--well, except for those getting cut, and their landlords and real estate agents. With a little planning you could cut the whole thing in half, and have a much more nimble and productive organization. I, therefore, was not aghast, or in shock with horror, because a few positions got left vacant under the Trump Administration, or when the budget proposals were not as grand as in the past. No great foreign policy calamity will befall the Republic because a few "professionals" get their noses out of joint, or some useless programs get cut back. Cut! And cut some more! I've got lots of ideas of where to cut.

In a post written long, long ago (March 12, 2012), I noted that under the late and unlamented Obama/Clinton foreign affairs team, "there is no foreign policy coming from the White House, except a default position of apology, appeasement, and accommodation." It was all just show, what now would be called "virtue signaling." Not all of that, of course, was the fault of Obama or Clinton or her even more despicable successor, John "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry.  There is a culture at State which I described as revolving,

around public displays of affection for the Secretary; more than that, it is based upon open adoration of the Secretary, who quickly becomes an almost mythical figure possessed of unbounded wisdom and insight. What we have, in other words, is a diluted version of North Korea. You go to staff meetings, and they ring with statements, such as "the Secretary has said," "the Secretary wants," and "the Secretary was right on point this morning." You have not seen grown people--mostly men--try to outdo themselves praising the Dear Leader until you have gone to a morning meeting at State chaired by somebody who just attended a prior staff meeting chaired by the Secretary. As the kids say, "OMG!" People you thought reasonable, lose all reason, all critical faculties as they rush to appear the Most Loyal Servant of the Secretary. These are supposed to be Americans, defenders of the Great Republic, but you expect them to break into Anna's song, absent the irony, 

"Yes, Your Majesty;No, Your Majesty.Tell us how low to go, Your Majesty;Make some more decrees, Your Majesty,Don't let us up off our knees, Your Majesty.Give us a kick, if you please, Your MajestyGive us a kick, if you would, Your Majesty Oh, That was good, Your Majesty!"

I haven't walked through the doorway at 2201 C St., NW, in quite some time, but I doubt things have gotten better. In fact, from all I hear sure they've gotten worse; I detect a sense of abandonment by the bureaucracy since the Trump Administration doesn't seem to worry too much about what the bureaucrats at Foggy Bottom have to say about foreign policy.

Folks, that's a good thing--unless you think foreign policy and diplomacy consist of doing what we always have done and getting the same results over and over. I remember, for example, the consternation at State when Reagan & Co. told us that we would have as our objective to roll-back the USSR. Horrors! "You can't do that! What about the UN? What about the Europeans? The World Order of the past 40 years? That's not how it's done!" I remember horrifying some arms control officials when I expressed that the best way to get Soviet disarmament was to increase ours and drive home to Moscow the futility of competing with the world's biggest economy. Lots of anger, especially from folks who made a very nice living conducting these seemingly endless disarmament negotiations in nice places such as Geneva and Helsinki with generous per diems. Innovation and questioning are not hallmarks of the State Department.

This President, perhaps more so than any other we've had, approaches foreign affairs with the cool detachment of an experienced businessman and negotiator concerned about the end result, not just the inputs. He asks, "Why? Why are we doing that when the USA doesn't benefit?" He is the exact opposite of the State Department belief in--irritating word--"deliverables." Prior to a top-level meeting with a senior foreigner, Department staff try to find a "deliverable," some sort of goody for our leadership to hand the alien potentate as a sign of our willingness to give more in the future. This President has the opposite approach: "I know what they're getting from us, what do we get from them? What's their 'deliverable' to us?" Shocking. He has no problem questioning the way things are--something not, as noted above, a strong point at State, or for that matter, of the usual international elites who get easily shocked by things such as Brexit, labelling Mad Kim as "Rocketman," threatening tariffs, backing out of the destructive Paris Climate Accord, etc.

Trump's approach, with or without the involvement of State, seems to be working. NATO is in better shape than it has been in  years. There is a glimmer of hope of meaningful progress on the Korean peninsula. The Middle East is doing much better now that ISIS has been virtually annihilated. We are moving our Embassy to Jerusalem with barely a peep out of the Arab world. The Saudis and Israelis (as predicted by this humble blog some years ago) are getting together in their opposition to Iran. Iranian boats have stopped harassing our fleet (wonder why?) The Chinese seem to be backing down from their threat of a trade war. Russian influence is on the wane. We have good relations with many African nations in the fight against the jihadis. These and others out there are good signs. A lot of this can be reversed, of course, but, for now, the Trump Caravan moves on even as the assorted prog dogs grow hoarse from barking.

Not bad.

More Stupid Ideas of March (UPDATE)

Along with other cities, Washington DC today played host to a large (How large? Who knows?) "March for Our Lives" allegedly put together by and for the students of a Parkland City high school in the wake of the mass shooting there last month. I have expressed on numerous occasions my distrust and dislike of these sort of marches (here and here, for example.) It is never completely clear what the real agenda is and who are the masterminds. (One guess what the real agenda is in this case.)

This demonstration saw the classic stupid prog props, the overwrought rhetoric and performances, including vomiting on stage by a young speaker and, of course, lots of children. Yes, children. Children placed prominently. Children as props. I have a particular disgust for people who bring small children to marches and demonstrations, and hand them pre-printed signs with cutesy sayings.

Children do not belong in such events. I have seen these affairs, in Spain, for example, go south real fast: terrified children being scooped up to get them out of the way of charging police horses, other running marchers, counter protestors, rubber bullets, tear gas, etc. The progs love to bring kids to potentially dangerous events, much like the Palestinians do.

If you're an adult, come as an adult, and brave the currents and tides of fortune as an adult--don't put children at risk. One has to wonder if deep down, some of these folks want to see a child get hurt. Anything for that CNN coverage?

Speaking of less-than-bright, a number of uber rich entertainment celebrities, protected by men with guns, made their presence known at the various anti-gun rights marches: e.g., Oprah, Clooney (who fled his mansion in "gun-less" Britain in fear for his children) and, most galling, Sir Paul McCartney who marched in New York.

We have enough homegrown idiots without need to import them. We are self-sufficient in stupidity. Why doesn't Sir Paul go home to march against knife violence and jihadi terror? Somebody said to me, well, his friend John Lennon was shot and killed in New York. Yes, well, my Foreign Service colleague Marie Burke was stabbed to death in her flat in London. Let's also not forget that Sir Paul's other buddy, George Harrison, was stabbed in his own palatial home near London. I guess I will head for London for the long-delayed anti-knife march . . . hope I don't get acid thrown in my face or run down by a jihadi in a rental van. Sir Paul, I am sure, will join me, and let me borrow his bodyguards.

Marches and marchers . . .

UPDATE! See the interview with my bearded Diploson 3 and his friends at the DC march. Don't tell me he doesn't look like Henry VIII or some Hell's Angel . . . Wonder when YouTube will take it down.

"Snow," Bombs and News from Norway

Sitting in my house surrounded by what I would normally call "snow." That can't be, however, since the Prophet Al Gore (Praises to his Name) has told us that "snow" is a thing of the past. I don't want to be accused of being a "Climate Denier," or of denying "Settled Science," so I will just assume that the white stuff out there is, uh, "tree dandruff" produced by man-made pollution and climate change. Yeah, that's it, tree dandruff. Kinda cold, though, well, I mean, cold, you know, for a warming planet and all, but I must be wrong about that.

I see the Austin bomber has apparently blown himself up. The press, of course, can't be happy with reporting some good news so they have to try to meld the episode into their typical progressive narrative. I see the always "reliable" Daily Mail, among other commentators, quick to label this loser as a "devout white Christian."

Notice how quick the MSM is to identify his race. Notice, also, that there is no evidence that he was a "devout" Christian. The press go back to some blog entry he supposedly wrote in 2012 in which he expressed opposition to gay marriage and abortion. Hmmm? My Orthodox Jewish cousins are opposed to gay marriage and abortion. Muslims are, too. I guess that means they're all really devout Christians. I did not know that.

Balancing the good news of the death of the Austin creep comes some bad news from Norway.

Norwegian Justice Minister Sylvi Listhaug was forced to resign her position, apparently for being too pro-Norway and for worrying too much about the safety of Norwegians. I am not an expert on Norwegian politics and don't play one on the internet, so I will leave the in-depth analysis to those who know much more. According to the Washington Post and other American media she got herself into trouble for posting something on Facebook critical of the opposition party's stance on dealing with Islamic terrorists.

I don't know if that's true. I suspect that she was just too patriotic and too much Norway First for the usual globalist elitists, who have to keep reminding us of the July 2011 rampage by Anders Breivik every time anybody mentions Islamic terror.

Bottom line: I hope Listhaug remains a force on the Norwegian political scene, and can help Norway avoid the horror that has befallen much of the rest of Europe.

Beware the Ideas of March

OK.

We see "students" staging a protest against gun violence by "walking"--some got pushed-- out of their classes and participating in a variety of staged events, e.g., mass "die-ins," violent protests, and, of course, lots of marching about and waving signs. As usual, the proggy left is behind all this nonsense.

I wrote before about my profound disgust with this sort of "march" in the wake of Islamic terror,

[The Paris "peace" march] was a very typical, in fact, an extremely typical leftist/progressive/narcissist manifestation akin to so many others we have seen over the years. It was replete with the usual trademarks of progressivism: prancing and preening; empty slogans and rhetoric; and equally empty gestures and cartoonish props, e.g., giant pencils, rakishly worn bandanas, silly make-up, etc. It was a manifestation on steroids by people who would put lame bumper stickers <...> on a PRIUS.

That, I think, pretty much applies to this march, as well, with the added feature that these "brave" marchers were encouraged even forced to hit the streets by tax-payer paid prog politicians and bureaucrats who facilitated the protest by letting the kiddies out of their tax-payer funded schools, provided them tax-payer funded transportation, and ensured them a respectful hearing from the echo-chamber prog media.

We were all supposed to be in awe of the wisdom flowing the mouths of babes, and run off screaming in support of those who march to take away our Constitutionally guaranteed rights and limit our freedoms.

Emotion substituting for thinking.

The "Ideas" of March.

Quick Thought on the Pennsylvania Special Election

I have admitted many times that I am a blundering ox when it comes to US domestic politics. So, I will try not to be TOO STOOPID in a quick comment on the Pennsylvania special election which took place yesterday.

As of this writing, the election result is too close to call but it SEEMS (I use that word a lot) that the Democratic Party candidate, Conor Lamb, will beat his GOP opponent, Rick Saccade, by about 700 or so votes out of some 227, 000 votes cast. Not many elections get much closer than that!

The media is going to be full of analysis of how this is a major blow to Trump and a sure sign of a coming Blue Wave in November's mid-terms.  I don't know (I use that phrase a lot, too). One robin does not a spring make . . . and all that jazz. Look, undoubtedly this is not a good thing for the GOP and it shows that Trump's popularity (he won that district overwhelmingly in 2016) does not necessarily translate down-ticket, as the wise ones say. The same was true about Obama. It seems (that word--TW) that BIG political personalities such as Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump do not always transfer their appeal to others. Not surprising. I mean, well, my wife is more liked than I am, and I can't seem (TW) to transfer that to myself. Life is like that, it seems (TW).

Perhaps the only thing we can draw as a conclusion from the election on Tuesday is that in many districts it helps to have a good candidate who can run a good campaign. From all I have read, I conclude that Lamb was the first and did the second. He seems (TW) to be a moderate Democrat--pro-life, pro-gun, pro-tax cuts and tariffs--who didn't make many if any missteps. It seems (TW) that many voters, especially those not absorbed by BIG politics and the grand scheme of the political balance, can be won over by a good candidate with a good campaign.

A note of warning to both parties.

Movie of the Year: Death Wish

Took the Diplowife, Diploson 1, Diploson 2, and Diploson 2 Girlfriend to the movies tonight.

We saw the Eli Roth/Bruce Willis movie, "Death Wish."

It's the movie of the year.

Hands down.

No other film comes close.

OK, it's a remake. Sort of. It has the same basic storyline that the 1974 Michael Winner/Charles Bronson "Death Wish" had--well, sort of.

In both films, the wife and the daughter of the protagonist, Paul Kersey, are brutally attacked at home by some thugs. The wife dies; the daughter is left in a coma. Mild-mannered Paul--in the original a New York architect, in the new one a Chicago ER trauma surgeon--goes to the police, and does everything a good citizen should. The cops, of course, are nigh on useless, swamped by unsolved crimes, understaffed, and just plain numb to the suffering.

In the original, Paul has an epiphany after visiting a friend and business associate in gun-loving Arizona, who tells him the cops won't protect him, and gives him a revolver. In this version, Paul has his epiphany after taking his wife's body home to her family in gun-loving Texas, and hearing from his gun-toting father-in-law (played by excellent Canadian actor Len Cariou) how the police won't protect him and a MAN, yes, a MAN, has to protect what's his. In both films, Paul subsequently goes on a rampage against the thugs on the street, with the added twist in the new version of his seeking the actual thugs who attacked his family.

I won't give the rest away, but you're guaranteed to have a rollicking time in the theater--and watch out for that bowling ball!

How can you resist a movie which portrays the gun store clerk as an attractive, young, smart, funny, and sympathetic woman? How can you resist a movie which has a college student reading from Milton Friedman? How can you resist a movie with conservative talk jock Mancow Mueller playing conservative talk jock Mancow Mueller? How can you resist a movie that constantly cites the murder stats in Chicago? How can you resist Bruce Willis agonizing over how he failed as a MAN, yes, a MAN, in his duty to protect his family? How can you resist a movie in which the main detective (played by the always great Dean Norris of "Breaking Bad" fame) spits out an organic, gluten-free, protein bar in disgust? How can you resist a movie that gives out good advice on proper handling of a firearm, and approvingly cites and demonstrates the wisdom of the phrase "when seconds count, the police are minutes away"? You can't. Resistance is futile.

OK, it's got a few technical flaws.

First, as Diploson 2 pointed out to me, nowadays just about no college student would be assigned to read Milton Friedman--not PC. Second, the availability of fully automatic weapons is just way off--you'll see what I mean at the end. Third, too many of the Chicago street thugs are white.

Put those quibbles aside, however, forget I even mentioned them; watch a movie that the liberal/progressive critics are hating, blasting, and ridiculing as a paean to a dying white patriarchy but which audiences are loving. Go to Rotten Tomatoes, if you don't believe me, and see the striking disparity between the views of "professional" critics and those of real people.

Offend the critics. Watch it.

Movie of the year.

California, North Korea, South Africa, Seychelles: Things are Happening

So much is happening that it is difficult to see it all, much less boil it down to comprehensible lumps; and then, hardest of all, discuss the lumps with some intelligence. I am going to give it a try--well, not discuss it all, but some of it, and see if I can reduce a few of these "things" to lumps I can see and understand. No guarantees. The intelligence part nails me every time.

My old home state of California is in the news, again, and not for good things. My once beloved California, in days now gone the envy of the globe--the generator of so much of what now comprises the modern world such as amazing aerospace technologies, television, music, movies, computers, cars, freeways, video games, "smart" phones, surfing, birth control pills, Uber, Lyft, Google, Twitter, shelled walnuts, and so much more, is now a place caught in a death spiral.

Uber, yes, that's a word we will use a lot in describing California.

The politics and bureaucracy of the ol' Bear Republic, along with those of its counties, cities, and once-formidable and world-beating education system have fallen into a deep, deep progressive hole from which there seems no escape--the digging continues at a furious pace. Just about any sensible person who can do so (there's the rub) has left or is making plans to leave the state. Businesses are closing up, unable to survive the increasingly oppressive rule of new regulations, taxes, and the most extreme sort of political correctness. It has become a state of the uber rich and the uber poor, many imported from abroad, and its key politicians proudly proclaim that California is the future for America!

It is a state in which national laws, including the Constitution, no longer seem to apply. Illegal aliens by the millions are welcomed, given bounty from the declining treasure chests of the state, cities and counties, protected from law enforcement for the crimes they commit, and allowed, nay, encouraged to vote. The cities of San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles (to name just three) are now third-world repositories of disease, with fecal matter adrift in the air and water, massive tent cities, and uber violent street gangs. The authorities respond to the chaos in the streets by making it increasingly difficult for the law-abiding to defend themselves and their families. The mayor of Oakland, once a great city, and now . . . well, go there and see for yourself . . . warns violent, criminal aliens that ICE raids are forthcoming, making it possible for them to escape the long-arm of the Feds.

The progressives are up in arms, alarmed, driven by a righteous woke anger, because the Trump administration has had the temerity to suggest that California must comply with the law and Constitution, or pay the consequences. For the Jefferson Davis clones of California, this is a war on immigration! Persons of color are being targeted! California authorities appear looking for a Ft. Sumter to attack and make known their intention to secede from the Union! We'll see how this turns out, but I see no happy ending.

North Korea's "Little Rocket Man"--Surprise!--has realized that he has come up against somebody, Donald Trump, quite different from what he and his reprehensible family have faced in the past. President Trump and Secretary Mattis made clear that Kim Jong-Un was heading for the most terrifying 20 minutes of his existence. He is today making noises that well, maybe, he and Trump should talk and work something out, because, he might be thinking, that, maybe, having a little nuclear force is not worth the cost of getting his country, regime, and himself (above all) vaporized and turned into radioactive dust. It seems (remember that word) Trump has gotten the measure of Kim. We'll see how this turns out, but there is, just maybe, a possibility for a happy ending. I am sure the progressives will be heaping praise on Trump . . . right.

South Africa. Complicated place with a complicated history which few outside of the Boers and the Zulus seem to understand or appreciate. When I was at the UN in the 1980's I had to deal with the South African "Issue." Israel and South Africa, of course, were the greatest evils facing mankind, and the UN spared no effort to crush them both. I would, on occasion meet, quite discreetly, the harried and tired-looking South African diplomats assigned to New York and Geneva. I remember their Mission in NY had no identifying flag or symbol; you knew you were entering South African property only because the door handle read "Trek." A giveaway, that. The British, Israelis, and we were about the only ones who argued for a more moderate treatment of South Africa. In the end, of course, our policy likely would have produced the same thing that eventually happened, to wit, the death of Africa's richest and most productive country.

In dealing with South Africa back then, we viewed it as some sort of replay of our own civil rights struggle and fight against Jim Crow. That, of course, was nonsense, but few of us had the knowledge or courage to say so. The Boers, especially, had about as much claim to South Africa as did the Zulus. Both were conquering tribes. Traditional enemies of the British, the Boers and the Zulus, in fact, had reached a sort of accommodation and seemed tacitly united against the massive influx of outsiders that finally did alter irrevocably the demographics of South Africa. Immigration did the place in. Yes, evil South Africa under the evil Boers was a net recipient of immigrants and refugees, almost all black and Asian from other parts of Africa. For a time, of course, big business such as in the diamond, gold, and agricultural sectors welcomed these migrants as a source of cheap labor. Well, as we can see at home and in Europe, cheap labor can get very expensive very quickly especially once it gets politicized by "progressive" forces. So, evil apartheid was destroyed; Mandela and his ANC took power, and--Surprise!--South Africa has become a hellish place for everybody, black, white, Zulu, Boer, Anglo, Asian, etc.

We now see the South African parliament declaring that white-owned property (about ¾'s of the most productive agricultural land) can and should be seized without compensation, in the style of Zimbabwe. We have prominent South African politicians calling for the murder of whites. The world reaction seems, to say the least, muted. I see no calls for a meeting of the UNSC, or emergency human rights meetings in NY or Geneva. Silence in the face of genocide. White Lives Don't Matter!

The freak show known as the Mueller investigation into Trump-Russian collusion has moved on to the Seychelles. This small African island republic was APPARENTLY the setting for a meeting in January 2017 between Trump reps and the Russians brokered by the real-life all-purpose Orwellian Emmanuel Goldstein known as Eric Prince. Mr. Prince, once the head of Blackwater, features prominently in the progressive pantheon of evil ones; the fact that he's also the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos makes him a double-plus-good bogeyman. It seems, per this silly story, that Prince sought to help Trump set up a back channel to the Russians shortly before the President-elect took office. The story is rubbish. Why would the President of the United States need a double-plus secret back channel to Moscow when we have infinite number of channels to Russia? Why would Trump, whom, we should remember, according to the DNC had been bought and paid for by Putin, need Prince to broker such a deal? Presumably the Russians had all the "channel" they needed . . . Nonsense. Total rubbish.

Well, of course, there's more, but what would I write about in the days to come if I spelled it all out now?

Sunday Thoughts: Trump is Still Winning . . .

Pretty quiet Sunday at home.

Lots of kids and dogs. Our new fenced in backyard is all set and the dogs enjoy it as if, well, they were dogs enjoying a large fenced in yard. Our house overlooks the ninth hole of a swanky golf club and the dogs think it great sport to bark like, uh, like dogs at the golfers trying to concentrate on their game. Had lots of workers at the house installing this, fixing that, but things are starting to look pretty good. Another of my cars arrived from California and I need to go get it registered in North Carolina and get rid of those Caliban license plates.

The news? Well, pretty much more of the same. I remain banned from Twitter so I am unable to hurl invective at celebrities deserving it so I must restrict myself to yelling at the TV set or screaming at the Sirius radio in my car. That said, Trump seems to remain on his winning streak. In my view, he has masterfully trolled and outflanked the progs on guns, and I think our Second Amendment is in pretty good in shape. The prog narrative is simply not gaining traction.

Tariffs on imports? Not my favorite way of tackling trade imbalances, but judging from the over-the-top reactions we are hearing from some of our trading "partners," it seems Trump has hit the nail on the head or, at least, a nerve. I think we will see some progress that will avoid a "trade war." Just like we saw NATO countries cough up some extra Euros for NATO after Trump's last "outrage," we will see movement on trade. He also, by the way, has just out-flanked the Dems by making himself the protector of union labor.

I see that the New York Times has discovered Sweden, sort of.

I just read an odd piece in the NYT on hand grenade and gang violence in Sweden, notably in Malmo. Read it; it is a weird piece of progressive writing by which the authors are trying to discuss the rise in violent crime in Sweden while playing down the role of massive immigration, mentioning it almost in passing and as something the Swedish right will exploit in the next elections. Almost without meaning to, the authors touch upon the source of the violence and the Swedish police's failure to handle it,

Last year, Peter Springare, 61, a veteran police officer in Orebro, published a furious Facebook post saying violent crimes he was investigating were committed by immigrants from “Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown country, unknown country, Sweden.” It was shared more than 20,000 times; Mr. Springare has since been investigated twice by state prosecutors, once for inciting racial hatred, though neither resulted in charges.

Was Springare right or wrong? Is investigating Springare the best use of police resources? You won't find out reading the NYT. It seems, I guess, that one day Swedes just woke up and became really violent, because Trump just could not be right when he commented on the sources of violence in Sweden.

OK, not much else to say right now.

Let's see how the President drives the progs crazy in the coming week.