Sunday, August 31, 2025

The Democrats’ Cult of Human Sacrifice


When President Trump deployed National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., condemnation from Democrats was swift and withering. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D - NY) declared, “No f‑‑‑ing way” would he agree to extending the deployment beyond 30 days, saying. “We’ll fight him tooth and nail.” After Mayor Muriel Bowser said, “The fact that we have more law enforcement and presence in neighborhoods, that may be positive,” she reverted to the official Democrat Party line, telling community leaders they need to “protect our city and to protect our autonomy, to protect our Home Rule, and get to the other side of this guy…”

President Trump's talk of sending the National Guard to large American cities both in blue states (like Chicago in Illinois) and red states (St. Louis in Missouri) has infuriated Democrat officials. Maryland governor Wes Moore called out President Trump, saying, “if you are not willing to walk our communities, keep our name out of your mouth.” Trump responded on X, “As President, I would much prefer that [Gov. Moore] clean up this Crime disaster before I go there for a ‘walk.’”

Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson were more blunt. “Mr. President -- Instead, I say: do not come. You are neither wanted nor needed here,” Pritzker said, adding. “If you hurt my people, nothing will stop me… from making sure that you face justice." On the MS-NOW program “Morning Joe,” Johnson implied that more funding for social programs would solve Chicago’s crime problems with and repeatedly refused to say that 5,000 more police officers in Chicago -- in addition to the social programs he proposes -- would make the city’s residents safer.  

These Democrat politicians are terrified that the President’s intervention in Washington is working. From January through July of 2025, the monthly number of homicides in the District averaged over 13. Since the deployment of the National Guard, homicides in the District have fallen to zero.

Politicians of every stripe should support saving the lives of people who would otherwise be murdered. Yet Democrats behave as though the actions President Trump has taken are worse that the deaths those actions have prevented.

A seminal event in the development of Western civilization was the sacrifice of Isaac, in which the Hebrew God revealed to Abraham that He regarded human sacrifice as abhorrent and atavistic. Every modern civilization now rejects the idea of human sacrifice.

Every civilization, that is, except the Democrat Party, which is increasingly identified with progressive beliefs: In America, economics is fundamentally unfair. criminal justice and incarceration perpetuate class and racial oppression, morality derives intersectionality, and above all, Donald Trump is a despot, so whatever springs forth from his mind, mouth, and pen is an evil that must be resisted.

These sacred beliefs cannot be challenged by the party faithful. Insha Rahman of Vera Institute of Justice advised the crowd at the DNC meeting in Minneapolis, “Don't take the bait in talking about migrant crime or carjackings or the things that actually don't matter to that many Americans…” When adherence to these beliefs costs citizens their lives, Democrats treat that as the unavoidable price for keeping the faith. When alternatives to Democratic governance reduce or eliminate those deaths, Democrats fiercely defend their right to sacrifice those who should have died under Democratic policies.

In the twelve months to June 2025, there were 498 homicides in Chicago. Worse is the racial disparity in homicide rates: whites experienced 2.5 homicides per 100,000 residents, Latinos 14.2, and Blacks an astounding 55.0. If Democrats hate racial injustice, local and state officials should welcome help from any quarter in any form to make Chicago safer. Instead, Pritzker and Johnson are willing to pay any price, bear any burden to keep Trump from making Chicagoans safer, especially since that price is actually paid by the city’s forty murder victims monthly.

Baltimore, despite its lowest murder rate since 1977, is still in the top 10 of U.S. cities. St. Louis had a 22% decline in its murder rate in the first half of 2025 to just under 80 per 100,000 residents. In cities like Memphis, Houston, and Oakland, California, Democratic leaders point to year-on-year reductions in homicides and violent crimes, yet these are still among the most dangerous cities in America.

After three weeks of Federal deployment, people who live and work in Washington have noticed. Even Mayor Bowser has had another change of heart, telling reporters, "We greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what MPD has been able to do in this city." If the Democratic mayors of Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland, and other cities bothered to ask, they might find that their constituents would also accept help from the Trump Administration if it saved them from being sacrificed on the altar of Democrat Party beliefs.



at

Kids, What Kids? CA Teachers Union Pours Millions Into Gavin Newsom's Radical Redistricting Effort

 
By Bob Hoge  | August 31, 2025  |  RedState

The California Teachers Association long ago gave up the guise of caring about education and the children and instead became focused on a radical Marxist overhaul of our country.

READ MORE: LA Teachers Union to Kids: We Don’t Actually Care About You

California Teachers' Union Caught Spying on Parents

Now, as Gov. Gavin Newsom prepares to overturn the will of the people—who voted for two propositions creating independent redistricting commissions—and redraw congressional maps as he sees fit, the CTA has joined forces with his radical effort.

He wants to amend the state’s constitution to do it, which is very different than what Texas did. Those comparing the two situations should note that in the Lone Star State, the state legislature already had the authority to redraw congressional district maps and didn’t need to bend their constitution to do it.

What does this have to do with the children? You got me. Perhaps $3 million would be better spent on supporting their education:

The big bucks go straight to Newsom’s redistricting coffers:

The California Teachers Association (CTA) has given $3 million to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s campaign for Proposition 50, a redistricting measure that will appear on the state’s Nov. 4, ballot, according to state campaign finance filings.

The CTA contribution, filed Aug. 23, went directly to “The Election Rigging Response Act, Governor Newsom’s Ballot Measure Committee,” which backs Prop 50.

The measure originated from a three-bill package in July, where Democrats used a “gut-and-amend” tactic on A.B. 604 and S.B. 280, along with A.C.A. 8, to grant the legislature temporary control of redistricting for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles. The state’s independent Citizens Redistricting Commission would resume authority in 2031.

“If this redistricting scheme goes through, voters will have no reason to trust politicians,” Assemblyman Carl DeMaio told Campus Reform. “Politicians will choose their voters; voters will not choose their politicians.”

California State Superintendent of Education candidate Sonja Shaw had thoughts:

I saw it firsthand at the hearing, they were the key presenters of this trash. 

California deserves better. Our kids deserve better.

Money talks in U.S. politics, and it always has and probably always will. However, unions like the CTA and the SEIU have put such a chokehold on California politics with their millions that they’ve made the Democrat supermajority utterly beholden to them, and that’s a big reason why California has experienced such an epic decline in virtually every category. They don’t care about the quality of life for the average Golden Stater; they care about themselves and imposing their radical vision on the state—and the country, if allowed.

How about focusing on the well-being of our young people and their education for a change, CTA? Now that would be radical.

at

Entertainment and politics thread for August 31


 

Hope you didn't miss me too much. :)

I have something very important to show you all.


After 3 years of nothing, she's finally been spotted.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15036869/Oscar-winning-actress-rare-outing-LA-guess-who.html

(and I think I'm getting really emotional inside)

at

The Democrat party is dying, and there is nothing leftists can do about it


The collectivist side of the political spectrum is in serious trouble these days.  Their polling is dropping like a stone, along with voter registration, and they are in a cash flow crisis.  Even worse for them is the fact that these are just superficial indications of endemic problems that cannot be fixed.  Two of these threaten to bring down the entire edifice.  Closely examining these helps explain the left, and show why the left is doomed.

Their attitude is typified by a line in the New Republic:

We’ve seen multiple periods of one-party dominance in our history; we’ve also seen defeated political parties wither and die.  Why shouldn’t the Republican Party join them?

It’s always been a common occurrence for a political movement to be at an ebb after a devastating election.  However, in the left’s case, these issues span centuries in scope, rooted in the differing political philosophies of the two sides of the spectrum.  The result is a crisis that is far worse than a mere electoral loss.  One of the worst flaws for the left stems from the basic ethos of its collectivist ideology, which must be founded in force and falsehood.

The pro-freedom right side of the political spectrum is based on liberty and limited government.  We may make the severe mistake in straying from that at times — and paying the price — but the foundational elements are based on these important considerations.

The collectivist left side of the spectrum is set in the concept of “equality” and the redistribution of wealth — concepts that require the application of force, since this requires the taking of property from some and passing it out to others, usually in exchange for their votes.

This has been tried for centuries in countless varied forms, and it has never achieved its lofty goals as advertised.  Thus, this requires that the left resort to falsehoods.

These two foundational concepts of the left — force and falsehood — go hand in hand and are also its inherent flaws that cannot be fixed.  All the happy talk of “equality” and the glorious world of next Tuesday sounds wonderful.  But after a while, the Bolshoi wears thin, and the people notice the distinct lack of an omelet for all the eggs being broken.

There is no getting around the left’s use of force to accomplish its lofty goals.  “From each according to his abilities” cannot be done without the point of a gun.  The second half is easy and works rather well when they’re looking to buy votes; it’s the first part, where they must grab the stuff to hand out, that gets awkward, especially when they’ve been running around talking “peace, love and tolerance” or the current leftist buzzwords of the moment.

Everything redounds from these foundational concepts.  If they’re relying on force to take people’s stuff, they want to avoid armed citizens at all costs. This is why they obsess over gun control and gun confiscation.  Disarmed serfs are a lot easier to push around and throw into a concentration camp if needed.

Always depending on falsehoods means they need to tightly control the flow of information, and have “friendly media” to “fact-check” their enemies into oblivion.

Since they’ve lost these vital support elements, their movement is dying out.  If they can’t arbitrarily disarm the peasants, they are going to rightfully keep their property, and the ever-tolerant lefties aren’t going to be able to use it as a bargaining chip to buy votes.  When they don’t have a tight hold on media dominance, false narratives get torn apart by the truth. 

Their biggest problem is that these flaws cannot be fixed.

What if they did change?  Sure, they could give up their gun confiscation obsession, but that would mean the people would be on an equal footing with them — and they certainly cannot abide that, because they depend on force and intimidation to get their way, seize property, and use that to buy votes.  If they can’t buy votes, the people won’t have a reason to vote Democrat, and they will lose.

What if leftists finally confessed to all their lies?  Collectivist ideologies depend on lies, and an outright admission on their part that it’s been tried countless times and never worked will put them out of business.  All of the ancillary lies would have a multiplying effect.  Instead of trusting them, people from this point on would ask the obvious question that if they were lying previously, what guarantees are there that they aren’t still lying?  This would completely undermine their ideology.  Without lies, they wouldn’t be able to rationalize the mandatory use of force to “equalize” society and buy votes.

These are just two of the left’s intrinsic flaws that will lead to its eventual demise.  Loss of media dominance means that leftists’ lies have ever-decreasing effectiveness.  And this means they can’t cover up the fact that their collectivist ideology depends on force.  Both flaws spell leftist doom.



at

How can Democrats be so wrong on everything?


Growing up in the 1960s, I spent many pleasant hours reading comic books — mostly Superman and related characters.  There was an odd group of characters called the “Bizarros” in that series.  These were monstrous duplicates of individuals from the universe inhabited by Superman and his cohorts.  Their defining characteristic, besides their hideous appearance, was that they did everything backwards: Good was bad, ugly was beautiful, and so on.

Such is the case with today’s Democrat (they’re not democratic) party.  Much has been written on their being on the wrong side of every 80/20 issue.  I have previously noted here that the party appears to be aligned with the demonic principles of Baal and Jezebel.  How else does one explain their celebration of abortion, the chemical and surgical castration of children, placing graphic pornography in K–12 schools, and welcoming thousands of vicious South American gang members into our country?

As conservatives, we champion the principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and personal responsibility.  These ideals are rooted in the Constitution and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and have enabled Americans to build the greatest nation on Earth.  Yet Democrat policies, especially recently, have veered away from these foundations.  They embrace big government interventions that smother economic growth, erode freedoms, and disproportionately and ironically harm the very people they claim to help — particularly minorities, small business owners, and the working poor.  These progressive fantasies are not just bad politics; they’re disastrous for Americans.  Everywhere they’re enacted, they inflate costs, expand bureaucracy, and reward dependency over self-reliance.  Those who see through leftist rhetoric are increasingly voting with their feet by fleeing Democrat-run cities and states and changing their alliance to the Republican Party.

The Biden administration provided some of the most egregious examples.  Its economic blunders inflicted real pain on minority communities and small businesses.  Inflation, dubbed “Bidenflation” by its innumerable critics, surged under Democrat control, costing the average family an extra $5,200 annually.  Meanwhile, real wages plummeted by over 2.5 percent in just 13 months.

A Wall Street Journal poll revealed that 35 percent of African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American respondents faced “major financial strain,” with more than half of black households struggling with energy insecurity.  Republicans like Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) pointed out that these policies deepen income inequality, making the poor poorer and making a mockery of the Democrats’ narrative of “equity.”  Biden’s health care reversals undermined Trump-era reforms, such as organ procurement improvements that saved lives among minorities waiting for transplants.

And let’s not forget the Biden tax hikes, which reversed wage gains for minorities.  As Alfredo Ortiz of the Job Creators Network testified, minority entrepreneurs were drowning in worker shortages and supply chain woes, all thanks to policies that prioritized government spending over job creation.

This pattern of harm extends to broader Democrat fantasies that sound noble but deliver misery.  Obama’s tax policy targeted those earning over $250,000 while theoretically sparing the middle class.  In reality, over 50 percent of those “wealthy” individuals were small business owners employing millions of middle-class workers.  Raising their taxes amid record unemployment, as Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke warned, was economic suicide, stifling investment and growth when families needed it most.  Even left-leaning senators like Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) agreed that it was the “last thing” to do in a recession.  Echoing this fiscal recklessness was the explosion of federal spending: a $1.5-trillion bailout, a trillion-dollar stimulus, and Obamacare’s trillion-dollar price tag skyrocketed the deficit without reining in the national debt.  Democrats’ (and Republicans’!) failure to pass budgets screams of irresponsibility, leaving future generations — especially low-income ones — to foot the bill through higher taxes and inflation.

The Democrats’ environmental mandates further illustrate how big government hurts the poor.  The Heritage Foundation exposed how climate regulations like the Clean Power Plan and vehicle emissions standards functioned as regressive taxes on energy, hiking household electricity costs.  Low-income families, who typically devote roughly 20 percent of their budgets to energy compared to less than 10 percent for the wealthy, are forced to choose between lights and food.  Efficiency rules jacked up purchase prices for appliances and light bulbs, burdening those who can’t afford the “long-term savings” promised by bureaucrats.  Fuel efficiency mandates added thousands to car prices and pennies per gallon at the pump.  The poor and middle-class were hit the hardest, as always, while environmental gains were negligible.  Ozone regulations divert billions from poverty programs to compliance, while the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) diverts crops to ethanol, spiking corn prices and food costs for the poor, who spend a third of their income on groceries.  The federal sugar program doubles domestic pricesthrough import restrictions, costing consumers $2.4–$4 billion per year.  Even relics like the Tennessee Valley Authority subsidize inefficiency, leading to rate hikes that disproportionately affect the poor and middle class.

Conservatives advocate market-driven solutions: repealing mandates; auctioning off assets like the TVA; and letting competition lower costs, empowering the poor through choice rather than coercion.

Other Democrat ideas border on the absurd, combining horrific policy with cynicism.  Packing the Supreme Court is a blatant partisan power-grab.  Although unlikely to pass, it would undermine judicial independence and alienate moderates.  Upon regaining the majority, Republicans would likely add conservative justices, beginning an endless, repetitive cycle and an ever-burgeoning Supreme Court.

Democrats’ plan to eliminate the filibuster would let the majority ram through radical agendas without compromise, another recipe for revenge when Republicans regain power.  Granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico?  Just one more transparent scheme for extra Senate seats.  This is straight-up vote-rigging disguised as representation.  Reparations for slavery, though emotionally charged, raise more questions and problems than they solve.  The slaves were primarily owned by Democrats, so maybe only Democrats should pay.  And what about black Americans who came to America after passage of the 13th Amendment?  Do they receive reparations as well?  Some Irish immigrants were indentured servants.  Perhaps they should also receive a cut.

Other Democrat policies are equally ridiculous.  Cap-and-trade schemes hike energy taxes, kill jobs, and block real energy independence.  Politicizing immigration, as in suing Arizona over border enforcement, backfires by rallying support for secure borders.  And Obamacare?  It saddled companies with $1.4 billion in losses, low public approval (just 33 percent per CNN), and job-killing fines.

Democrat policies — from Obamacare to Biden’s inflation machine to crippling regulations, burdensome taxes, and progressive pipe dreams — betray traditional American values by expanding government at the expense of freedom and prosperity.  They harm minorities through economic pain, burden the poor with hidden taxes, and fail politically by exposing overreach.  This overreach became noticeable during Obama’s tenure and accelerated under Biden.  Voters are increasingly recognizing that Democrat policies are abhorrent, unworkable, and inevitably harmful to the people they are ostensibly meant to help.

True progress lies in conservative reforms — tax cuts, deregulation, and market incentives that lift all boats.  As Americans tire of big government’s failures, it’s time to reclaim the limited government ethos that made our nation strong.  By rejecting leftist ideas, we can foster opportunity, security, and unity for generations to come.

The biblical prophet Isaiah warned us of these Bizarro-like policies when he said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

Perhaps someone should tell the Democrats.



at

🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


at

Lawfare Operative Norm Eisen Is Lawyer for Embattled Fed Governor Lisa Cook


I had not been paying close attention to the overarching issues of President Trump removing Fed Governor Lisa Cook for cause – fraudulent filings on her three mortgage applications. However, the appearance of Norm Eisen as her lawyer certainly highlights the political nature of the defense effort.

Norm Eisen is a well-known Lawfare operative, second only to Mary McCord in his high visibility and connections to all of the anti-Trump efforts. Eisen, like McCord, is at the center of the leftist effort to stop the Trump agenda through the manipulation of the courts, ie. ‘Lawfare.’

Norm Eisen left, Abbe Lowell right. Both lawyers for Lisa Cook

WASHINGTON – A federal judge likely will not rule until next week on whether Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve board, can remain in her job despite President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire her.

At the first hearing on Cook’s lawsuit against Trump, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb grappled with the legal issues raised by Trump’s unprecedented move against Cook but offered few hints about how she might rule. The judge, an appointee of Joe Biden, acknowledged the limits of the courts’ power to question the president’s motives, while expressing concerns about the lack of due process afforded to Cook. (more)

While the lawyers defending Ms. Cook dance around the central issue, there is no doubt Ms. Cook lied on three mortgage applications, claiming primary residency in both Illinois and Georgia within a week.

Norm Eisen appears in the footage below, but no one seems to notice him or identify him by name.



at

Guess Which State's Taxpayers Are Now Reportedly on the Hook After Trump Cut Off Kamala's Secret Service


RedState 

There are some things you just cannot make up, readers, and one of them is just how dedicated the Democrat Party is to placating those in their ranks most prone to failing upwards. The poster child for this that immediately springs to mind when thinking about California, of course, is former Vice President Kamala Harris, who was a U.S. senator and district attorney before being elevated to the executive branch by the powers that be on the Left.

While it's unclear what Kamala plans to do next, we already know what she won't be doing: running for governor of California, and she won't be jaunting around on her new book tour in the company of Secret Service agents, as my colleague Rusty Weiss wrote in a Friday piece on President Trump getting rid of the extra year that Biden signed off on for his VP: 

President Trump, in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday, revoked Secret Service protection from former Vice President Kamala Harris.

It was a directive necessitated by the fact that former President Joe Biden and/or his autopen had secretly authorized the detail to extend well beyond the standard term of protection for former Vice Presidents.

...

Unbeknownst to everybody, Biden issued a directive granting Harris Secret Service protection for three times as long as other vice presidents by extending it for an additional full year.

As Weiss also notes in his story, the standard term for protection--which both former VPs Biden and Mike Pence had--is six months.

It was supposed to expire in July, folks.

Now, if reports are accurate, it appears that California taxpayers will be on the hook for Kamala's protective detail--pardon me, "dignitary protection"-- from state law enforcement officers:

Former Vice President Kamala Harris will receive protection from the California Highway Patrol after President Trump revoked her Secret Service protection, law enforcement sources said Friday.

California officials put in place a plan to provide Harris with dignitary protection after Trump ended an arrangement that gave his opponent in last year’s election extended Secret Service security coverage.

...

The decision came after Newsom’s office and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass were in discussions Thursday evening on how best to address the situation. Harris resides in the western portion of Los Angeles.

Color me not at all surprised by this turn of events. Show of hands: who remembers during the 2024 election when the Biden-Harris administration purposely gave more/better-qualified Secret Service agents to First Lady Jill Biden for an event the same weekend as then-candidate Donald Trump was stumping in Butler, PA? And that extra security requests were denied by the USSS for two years?

Anyway, Governor Gavin Newsom's office hasn't confirmed the report about the protection plan, but you can read between the lines on their statement via spokes-shill Izzy Gordon:

Our office does not comment on security arrangements. The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.

I doubt I'm alone in imagining this move was spawned by Kamala staffers hopping on the phone to state and local Democrats after Trump ditched her bonus privilege security on American taxpayers' dime.

It's not like the Golden State has other, more pressing problems it needs to be spending money on, as RedState's Sister Toldjah wrote on Friday, about just the latest promise to clean up California's massive homelessness crisis that Gov. Newsom will likely leave unfulfilled.



at

Trump’s Foreign Policy Offends the Bureaucrat Paper Pushers of Dwindling Influence



Low utility middlemen in the Trump administration are feeling left out again, and so they’re back to anonymously moaning to the news media. This time they’re ragging on White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and his peacemaking efforts with Russia and Ukraine.

Politico on Friday quoted several unnamed “U.S. and foreign officials and other people” in a piece critical of Witkoff. None of them are worth repeating, as is usually the case with anything anonymous, but the most telling part of the article, by the unfortunately named Felicia Schwartz, came 16 paragraphs in.

“The summit in Alaska was notable in part because of how little preparation went into it,” wrote Schwartz, referring to the recent bilateral meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. “Typically ahead of such a high-profile meeting, foreign ministers and lower level staffers reach agreement on the choreography and outcomes ahead of time to make sure the meeting is productive and worthwhile.”

And here we get to the reason for an article headlined, “‘His inexperience shines through’: Steve Witkoff struggles to manage Russia as Trump peace envoy.” A few jilted “foreign ministers” and “lower level staffers” were sidelined, and it made their privates sore. This happens a lot in the Trump era. For better or worse (and it usually turns out for the better), the president takes an intense interest in the details of his job, a concept known outside of Washington as “working.” So, rather than relying on “ministers” and “lower level staffers” to execute his policies and efforts, he either does it himself or delegates it to someone with ready access to him.

The permanent foreign affairs bureaucracy hates that because it diminishes the influence of all its trifling bureaucrats, the “experts” who swear every single problem, no matter big or small, can only be addressed after they’ve had months and years to “study” them, write “papers,” and “consult” with one another. All of that is another way of saying, “not solving the problem.” In this case, not brokering a realistic peace deal in eastern Europe.

The permanent foreign affairs bureaucracy doesn’t exist to solve problems. It exists to keep otherwise worthless people employed earning important-sounding titles until the day they can finally retire from the government, only to then get a high-salary placement at an influential “think tank,” usually funded by weapons manufacturers. If their expertise isn’t consulted or considered even just a little, what are they for? Nothing, really. That’s why they run to places like Politico — to smear the person who has threatened their longtime scheme.

Think about how every time Trump wants to meet with a world leader his desire to do so is belittled by all the “expert” talking heads on cable news and treated by the major newspapers as a reckless self-indulgence. It’s not because there’s anything scandalous about two heads of state meeting face-to-face for the purpose of diplomacy. It’s because it renders all the “foreign ministers” and “lower level staffers” obsolete. If they don’t get to “reach agreement on the choreography and outcomes ahead of time,” they have no influence on the outcome.

True, sometimes the outcome isn’t what’s hoped for or the meeting results in a more complex understanding of certain international relations. That doesn’t make it a waste of time, and it doesn’t cheapen the presidency. It simply aggravates the middlemen who resent their diminished influence.



at