Moving Back to America, the Week in Review for February 1-4, 2021, brings you the highlights of Bill Whittle’s daily episodes.
Topics and time cues…
00:04 NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo should lose his job for ordering sick people into nursing homes.
03:23 Why political elites lead the cult of ‘victim’ worship.
06:06 Why pursuit of Donald Trump after leaving office is “un-American”.
09:12 We need a school to teach the fundamentals of fatherhood.
Video below hosted at Rumble, not Y@&T*$#.
9 replies on “News of Government Lies Meets a Public Yawn, because ‘Who Cares?’”
Americans are a passive, docile people who will tolerate any imposition with nary a complaint. Learn Mandarin.
Yes, just like we tolerated the abuses of King George.
Just like we laid back and cowered after the sneak attack on our military in 1941.
I quote Yamamoto, who said, “I fear we have only succeeded in waking a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve.”
Mandarin, my a$$. We’re going to end up teaching the Chinese how to be Citizens, instead of peasants and subjects. We’ll turn the Communists’ lie into the truth of the People’s Republic of China!!
So say we all?
I have a friend that was teaching English in China. Everybody there wants their kids to be able to speak English. Some will settle for Russian or Japanese or Thai if they are near a border but the majority want English. My friend is now teaching in Vietnam which is a safer country. While notionally still communist, Vietnam is now more of a free wheeling capitalist country than California or New York. Very few would have thought that could happen 60 years ago. All those that did were warning about Atheistic Humanism.
Says, judging by your name, a Dutchman?
Oh, the irony of ironies.
Ehhh, wrong!
LeMay; from the French. Related to Gen Curtis LeMay, the most hardcore Air Force leader ever, commanding officer of SAC during the Korean war.
It was for Jan Hellsund, not Phil LeMay.
I commented on your uncle before.
Bill, as usual, I have no debate against your points. You’re solidly on topic. If I were to offer anything, it would be not so much a “Who Cares?” but a more cynical “It Doesn’t Matter – The Swamp Will Do What it Does.”
That isn’t the way I’d like it to be at all. I’d very much like to send my congresscritter a letter or an email and instead of getting back a reason or excuse as to why that congresscritter voted the way he did, I get some BS nonsensical crap that doesn’t address my point.
That has happened over and over and over again, which tells me the power brokers in The Swamp don’t care what I think — they care only what their donors bring them in the form of checks.
Am internally debating whether to actually sign on the the Republican Party. I’ve avoided it all these years because I’ve become convinced that there isn’t much difference between the parties — they’re both spend, spend, spend. But since the Obama reign of terror, I’ve learned that the Democrats have become absolutely, unequivocally Public Enemy No. 1. The lesser evil, but an evil nonetheless, is the Republican Party.
Another point – I like your abbreviated versions of MB2A. You lost me for a while because of the time factor needed in watching them all.
Allen, I concur with your comment about the briefer versions of MB2A being adequate to get the messages across.
But maybe we also need to better define who or what constitutes The Swamp. I don’t consider members of Congress to be swamp creatures because they are eventually accountable to the electorate (or at least were). They are basically in the dingy riding on top of the murky water.
I would also exclude the senior executive service (SES) folks from the Swamp as they are also consented to by the Senate. Not sure how deep the SES goes but presumably includes the dept. secretaries and maybe assistants or deputies? In short, anyone who arrives or leaves with the election cycle is interacting with the Swamp on our behalf but not directly part of it. [But see caveats below].
So we need to learn more about the reasons and purposes and later refinements of the civil service legislation and regulations, and the arrival and continued support for public sector unions, to see how we can reform those rules for greater accountability, ease of firing incompetents, defining suitable performance metrics, etc. And if the Progressive argument is that the administrative bureaucrat expert is so expert and essential, why isn’t she/he promoted to Sec. level and required to face political scrutiny? And a further option would be to move some of the middle/senior level folks around among the agencies, partly so each dept. gets fresh eyes and ideas (i.e., real diversity) and also to minimize allegiance to the dept. rather than to the nation or the governmental process in total.
Also included in the Swamp are all of the lobbyists and agents and hangers on who rotate in and out of public and private service, using their prior connections to command high fees for improved access and/or for writing draft legislation. Lobbying by itself is still a valid first amendment activity, sometimes representing small entities that cannot afford to send their own distinct agent to DC but can band together in an industry group and then do so. So the issue is how much delay between leaving government executive and/or legislative (and legislative staff) service should exist before someone can re-access legislators and their staffers as part of an attempt at influence. I would vote for at least 4 or 5 years but 8 years might be unjustifiably long. Then again, the recycled Obama staffers in the Biden administration say maybe an even longer cycle, or some form of non-repeat term limits, should apply.
No telling how we manage to do this last one, but the media has to take up the role of independent assessor of what is happening within each congressional office and committee, in part to publish for the folks back home. Reporting who the legislator (and/or senior staffers) saw, for how long, discussing what topics, and comparing that to past campaign donations and subsequent voting positions (and donations). The reality of providing sunshine is probably even more complicated, to include evening parties, weekend golfing, hunting trips, etc. where the politicos meet (with masks of course!!) and the press cannot follow. Still, some form of real inquiry is better than the soft mush liberal bias we are seeing now.
George – thank you for your thoughtful reply. In my mind, “The Swamp” consists of, but is not limited, to these types of professionals:
Politicians spend more time raising money than they do in actually preparing, reviewing, and voting on legislation. They’re part of “The Swamp” when they become a professional politician, and I’d arguably suggest that a Congressman becomes a professional politicians after the 3rd term. A Senator, after 2 terms. They are interested in keeping the status quo and they, because they’ve had to accept money from critters they wouldn’t walk down the street with, they’re beholden to them. Most of them are professional liars as well. You’d have to be to engage in that process.