Friday, February 23, 2018

Only Kings can Drain Swamps

The Swamp is not just an American problem. There are swamps in all Anglophile western countries.  The age of Kings was ended in blood in western nations and replaced by Democracy. The blood has continued to flow. Electing the common man (and woman) to high power and to run our Institutions was supposed to be the way to go but it has not gained a sound track record. Maybe the old Athenian Tyrant is the way we need.
One looks in some horror at the efforts The Donald - hardly a tyrant despite the rhetorical shrieks of his detractors - is having to make to drain his home swamp and the hamstringing of those efforts: there are many in the ''public service' there that need their hamstrings cut and maybe even necks stretched. Yet look at Britain. Look at Oz. (One averts the eye and shakes the head at Canada!). I hazard things are no better here and there.

There are differences in 'democratic' political systems that feed different sorts of swamp. American Presidents have some 4000 political appointments that can be made to 'seed' and lead the large administrative institutions. It can take up the first few years of a Presidency just clearing out all the last one's appointments. There is resistance. Now the Donald is finding sheer opposition. 

He is finding traitorous actions from top levels to bottom. But he does not have the power to take decisive and terminal action. He cannot be a Tyrant and run things by decree, as Obama did. The Donald 'tweets' and exposes the rats. It is slow and painstaking and requires a Legal System that is impartial. The American one is anything but, with the DoJ that actively plotted against him. Even the FBI is actively involved in traitorous acts, in conspiracy with and conformity with the Obama- Clinton mafia.

In Oz and Britain there is a 'Westminster System', whereby the political party that gains in election inherits a Permanent Civil Service.  Political' appointments do not get a look in. They are supposed to be impartial, but what do we see? 

In Britain the weak female Prime Minister, elevated because the last PM  resigned having 'gone against' the wishes of the People, and no-one else wanted the hard task of implementing Brexit, is adrift in a 'character' far different from the last female Prime Minister.  

Her civil servants are, as she is, Remainers (Bremoaners) almost to a man and woman.  They cannot simply be 'replaced' by other more politically friendly people. The place is a shambles. While Brexit dominates the discussion the nation itself is becoming less British by the day.

In Oz we have had a long period of political slaughter with three Prime Ministers in a row being knifed in the back by their own side. 
The public service was and is without political or even democratic direction. 

One might have hoped that the civil service here would hold fast, but what do we find? 

Holding fast they are, but not to Oz. 

One wonders how long and how deeply the attitudes and actions have been going on, with civil servants deliberately ignoring the best interests of Oz and even the directions of the politicians. 

Fiefdoms are ingrained. 

Only some firm action can stop the rot. 

Heads must roll. Perhaps literally.

It is almost ironic that amid all the political turmoils besetting us today, one of the most popular media entertainments is the fictional  'Game of Thrones'. It is enjoyed by so many who do not realise that it is based on reality.

 Yes, Kings were problematic, often, but we have not improved by having Democracy. 

At least Kings could rid themselves and their nations of pesky traitors, time wasters and depleters of the treasury. History is replete with examples of good Kings and Bad ones. 

One could speak widely but we had a chap in to have a pint and a chat about one aspect of the Oz situation which no-one is even keeping an eye on let alone kicking arses. 

Our 'foreign' service. We call it DFAT. It should be called Defeat. 

Some of the matters he held forth about may seem trivial compared to FBI conspiracies and the legion of people connected to the modern Lucrezia Borgia Hilary that have died mysteriously. 

But they speak to the woeful mindcast. Most of the 'civil servants' in DFAT do not have what it takes for real traitorous behaviour. Ineptitude is more the order. But it is ineptitude in a particular direction. 

Leftist, cultural marxist, feminist, PC attitudes lie barely beneath the surface. 

They are anti-western in character and colour.

Mark Higgie was Australian ambassador to the EU, 2014-17, so has not only been 'close' to DFAT but was also a former adviser to Tony Abbott. 
Political bias: 
leftist DFAT holds our foreign policy hostage

Bureaucracies are shaped as much by the political views of those who staff them as their commitment to implementing government policies. Having observed our diplomats from the prime minister’s office as an adviser to Tony Abbott and on five diplomatic postings, I have no doubt that their views of the world, advice and decision-making in the main reflect — to a greater extent than other parts of the federal government machinery — the politically correct pieties that also dominate the ABC, the Fairfax press, our universities and, increasingly, our schools.

To any Canberra insider, especially those in Coalition circles, the fact most of our diplomats are leftish is a given. 
But the foreign service’s political bias matters and is a real issue for Liberal-National governments — obviously not so much for Labor. If the bias isn’t corrected by close government management, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s bureaucracy and operations (cost: $5.1 billion this financial year including overseas aid) will go their own way and capture ministers and even prime ministers along the way.
That is if they, the Ministers, care. Most seem to be in the business of reefing as much money and perks for themselves. And fighting amongst themselves.  And buying 'international office'. That is their priority.  The drivel discussed (if that is the word) in Parliament is mostly a distraction from what is really going on.
The spirit of Gough Whitlam continues to hover over DFAT’s RG Casey Building in Canberra. Most of our diplomats dream of an Australia less aligned with the US and have an often unqualified enthusiasm for the UN. 
They prefer Greens/Labor approaches to climate change to those of the Coalition. They’re deeply uneasy with recent Coalition border protection policies and like the 1970s version of multiculturalism that “celebrates diversity” without much concern for common values and integration. 
They want us unshackled, as they see it, from our symbolic linkages with Britain.
As if we were not an independant nation and have been for 118 years.  Great Britain in its heyday was Parent to all Anglophile nations which should honour it. These 'multiculturalists' would wish we had 'parents' from Nigeria.
A few examples of DFAT’s thriving leftist bias and the tendency among many of its staff to make judgments out of step with mainstream Australian attitudes:
• Yassmin Abdel-Magied has become notorious for her contemptuous attitude towards Australia, highly controversial views of Islam (“the most feminist religion”) and preparedness to seek advice from the extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir — banned in many countries because of its defence of Islamist terrorism, one of its spokesmen having described Australian troops in Afghanistan as “fair game” whom Muslims had an obligation to attack. 
Nevertheless, Abdel-Magied was appointed in 2015 to DFAT’s Council for Australian-Arab Relations and the following year, after she said on the ABC’s The Drum that sharia law was “about mercy” and “kindness”, DFAT funded and promoted her travels around the Middle East, representing Australia.
OK. it is not as though DFAT loaded pallets of cash - 150 billion bucks of cash - and sent them to a foreign power. They sent poisonous emissaries.
• This case of DFAT’s desperation to prove itself hip to Islam wasn’t an exception. Its Twitter account for some years has extended greetings to Muslims on the occasion of Ramadan and last year the usual message was supplemented by an additional message from the DFAT secretary. But no equivalent courtesies were tweeted last year to the world’s Jews — or indeed to the world’s Christians.
• DFAT also recently created a Twitter storm by enthusing about the Muslim “modest fashion market” of hijabs and burkinis — apparently oblivious to the fact the pressures and in some cases requirement to wear such garments are deeply controversial in many Muslim communities, as highlighted by recent anti-hijab protests in Iran. There was much social media incredulity that DFAT could imply that women who don’t wear such garments are somehow immodest and what this says about an organisation that is supposed to represent Australia to the world and to champion the rights of women and girls.

• Most Australians would be aghast that about $44 million of their taxes will be paid this financial year for aid projects in the Palestinian territories, while the Palestinian Authority managed to find $US347m last year for payments to convicted terrorists and their families under its “martyr payments policy”, thus encouraging terrorism. 
The US House of Representatives in December unanimously passed the Taylor Force Act, which would link continued US aid to the Palestinian Authority ceasing such payments. But the Australian government, advised by DFAT, continues to resist any such linkage.
Ve vish ve had vays of silenzink you.

• In June last year the EU funded an EU-Australia Leadership Forum in Sydney, with round tables discussing various matters of mutual interest, organised in co-operation with DFAT. One of the round tables was focused on migration issues, an opportunity for European participants to learn more about Australia’s success in stopping the people-smugglers’ trade while maintaining a generous refugee intake — an achievement in which Europeans have been increasingly interested since their catastrophic and continuing migration crisis. 
But the round table was chaired by then Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs, one of the most strident critics of the government’s border protection policies.

• In Brussels I discovered widespread awareness that a DFAT officer at the mission was moonlighting openly as the president of a political lobby group, using social media to make charges of racism and homophobia against prominent European political figures, including the leader of an EU and NATO member-state with which Australia enjoys cordial relations.

• Another DFAT official at the mission used Twitter to call for Rupert Murdoch to “become a hermit”, to describe the government as “utterly backward” on gay marriage — but Julia Gillard as “a personal hero” and “a strong female progressive” — and to barrack for a Labour win in the 2015 British election.
Who authroised Gillard to give Au$Millions to Hilary Clinton? Was it she herself, or was it some functionary who slid a cheque for signing into her red box? Who did the same with Bishop who seems to have added to the Clinton Foundation's pot of embezzeled taxpayers' monies. Such 'donations' insult every decent Australian.
• At a US embassy reception arranged on November 9, 2016, to watch the results of the presidential election, a DFAT officer present wept openly once it became clear Donald Trump had won.

The problem with our foreign affairs bureaucracy isn’t just the consistent political correctness and suspicion of the Coalition. Much effort is devoted to activity often marginal to Australia’s international interests.
How very diplomatic. They are traitors. Parasites. Playing for the other team. 
Much fretting goes into how to achieve increased staffing diversity in DFAT, including through “diversity networks” and “champions” — even though the days when it was dominated by Anglo heterosexual men are long gone.
From DFAT's blog.

No one wants discrimination against minorities, but most taxpayers would see DFAT’s participation in last year’s Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras as an activity remote from the protection of our international interests.

Agonised introspection chews up much effort more broadly, with the regular generation of often impenetrable managerialese: for example, with its “capability improvement program” — not to be confused with its “capability action plan” — DFAT is on a “capability development journey”, ever on the lookout for “capability champions” (to supplement the “diversity champions”).
Every one with a budget, of course. 
The effort put into this gibberish, which now includes “unconscious bias” training for managers, requires much expensive staff time. 
The appalling lapse by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in losing hundreds of cabinet documents raises the question of whether these fashionable corporate obsessions distract attention from important priorities, such as ensuring national security and maintaining the confidence of our allies in sharing their secrets with us.

Even more effort goes into DFAT’s favourite activity, campaigning for more influence in the UN. 
If this didn’t require such effort, money and distortion to our foreign policy, it might not matter. But, as with Labor’s campaign for the UN Security Council, that’s rarely the case. In that instance, in pursuit of votes, hundreds of millions of dollars of extra aid money were pumped into Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa, and we softened our traditionally strong support for Israel.
The phenomenal outflows of Taxpayers' monies to cronies all over the world make the mind boggle. Oz has a huge foreign debt. To give away a dollar, we have to borrow it and enough to cover the ever growing interest accruing. Our debt grows by the day and Mrs Bishop spends $30,000 on  a dress to woe dictators and muslims, both of which sorts sneer at her behind her back. 

We send hundreds of millions of dollars to larger populated nations that have nuclear power, nuclear weapons, huge armed forces and space programs.

 We ourselves have none of these other than a small armed force. No political party has a mandate to give such wasted largesse. 

No Minister has a list in her handbag. The cheques are raised in DFAT by some nameless (to the public) civil servant who says "Sign Here".

Those civil servants say it is a drop in the ocean in GDP terms, and perhaps it is. But the fact is we are in enormous debt and that is not going to be paid for by cups of coffee.

There are just 13 million income tax payers in Oz. $5000,000,000 is just $385 per head. I do not begrudge 'foreign aid' to those that need it, but I also know many people in Oz who could keep their nostrils just above the waterline with $385. And it does appear that some of that money goes to waste and to people not in need. For example Oz gives $330 million to Indonesia, which has an enormous military: much larger than ours. Indonesia has 230 million people: ten times our population. They are just as capable as any to manage their affairs but seem to have a GDP of just under a $Trillion compared to our $1.2 Trillion. Why are we giving them a cent? 
Dane Gelt.

When Indonesia was hit by a Tsunami our Government gave Au$One Billion in aid. It was generous and needed. No-one begrudged it. In addition though, the people of Oz collected from amongst themselves another one Billion bucks to give to Indonesia.  

Indonesia does not give us aid when we have natural disasters - which are annual in Oz.

No-one elected the civil servants, who seem scared of Indonesia. They are the bloke and the woman down the street. Commoners, like you and me. (Well, not me). They rise up the greasy pole by conforming to the dogmas learned in University at their Marxist lecturers' knee.

To avoid a repeat performance, Abbott resisted DFAT pressure to launch a campaign for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. That partly reflected its particularly dubious nature — its members include Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China. But after Abbott lost the leadership, DFAT quickly got the green light. 
As The Australian’s Greg Sheridan observed, this signalled that the Turnbull administration was going to be a bit more cuddly and progressive internationally. 
It chewed up huge amounts of effort as we hawked our credentials to be admitted into the company of some of the world’s worst human rights violators.

With its managerial and UN preoccupations, DFAT has long neglected some of the basics of what we should expect of a foreign service. Foreign language skills, one of the keys to understanding other countries, aren’t taken all that seriously. Unlike most diplomatic services, foreign language ability isn’t compulsory for recruits. Several officers in Brussels, after years in the city, hadn’t bothered to learn enough French to be able to order a cup of coffee.

The writing skills of recruits are generally poor considering the competitive selection process. Many struggle to string together a coherent paragraph, let alone reports that may find their way towards the top of a minister’s or prime minister’s in-tray.

An especially insidious manifestation of DFAT’s right-on tendencies is the widespread instinct to shun political forces its officials disapprove of, be it members of Trump’s team during the US presidential campaign or Brexiteers ahead of the British referendum on EU membership.

On networking skills, many DFAT staff are painfully shy and passive about developing contacts. More useful than unconscious bias courses for DFAT staff would be training on developing networks, writing well, and developing conversation skills.
Meetings, meetings, and the essential sandwiches.

A curiosity is that as skills once considered core for our diplomats have declined, accommodation of dietary preferences has seen explosive growth. Colleagues at Meat & Livestock Australia have encountered vegetarianism so often among DFAT staff at their promotional events that they would occasionally ask in semi-jest if it was a selection criterion. 
One of our young diplomats once, when told that fish was to be served at an embassy function, demanded evidence that it had been sustainably sourced.

Our foreign affairs bureaucracy can be sloppy when it comes to what should be basics such as how we define our key area of strategic interest — where precision is important. The recent foreign policy white paper confirmed this as the “Indo-Pacific”, defined as the eastern Indian Ocean to the Pacific — so excluding the western parts of South Asia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. But at another point in the document, the authors treat the whole of South Asia as part of the Indo-Pacific.

Another basic is that DFAT should be prudent with taxpayers’ money. 
In 2012 it famously paid $388,000 to send 23 officials to a climate change summit in Rio de Janeiro; four years later it paid $192,000 to send a similar number to Paris to find ways to save costs. There was further extravagance last year when our 113 heads of mission were recalled home for discussions at a cost of $1.17m. As reported by The Australian, Alexander Downer, when foreign minister, rejected proposals for such meetings as a waste of money and time. Nothing about last year’s meeting suggested this assessment needed revision.

The 2015 review of DFAT led by Brendan Nelson recommended extending postings to four years, which would have saved millions of dollars. But after union objections, DFAT dropped the idea. To her credit, Julie Bishop, on becoming Foreign Minister, banned first-class travel in DFAT, prompting probably the most bitter objections from its leadership to any decision of the current government.

But probably DFAT’s worst failing is its lack of alertness to opportunities to advance the national interest. Why, for example did it not persuade Kevin Rudd or Gillard to pursue a free trade agreement with the EU?

The EU is the world’s second largest economy but its protectionism heavily restricts Australian exports in key areas such as beef and lamb. During Labor’s last term in office, the US, Canada and Japan launched talks on securing free trade agreements with the EU. The Canadians in 2012 estimated that an FTA with the EU would result in a $C12bn increase in Canada’s gross domestic product and 80,000 new jobs. Such analysis should have prompted Australia also to bang on doors in Brussels to start FTA talks. Why did that have to await the Abbott government?
Our elected politicians - of all stripes - are inept and corrupt. The civil service is the same. It is a swamp. 

Or perhaps a moral desert. 

We have a lot of desert on Oz. We call it the Red Centre.

There is a marxist-red centre in the mindset of our 'authorities': the leaders and servants.

Between them they advocate and implement the killing of near 100,000 Australian babies in the womb every years and bring in as immigrants twice as many. Many of those foreigners who come here do not like us; they do not like our Institutions; they do not like our Government and Governance.

I do not either.

The Democracy we 'enjoy' does not work. Those we elect do not act on our behalf first and foremost. Their hired hands actively work against the will and tenor of the ordinary Australian. Most if not all are Immoral.

They all need to be swept away.

So, I refer you back to the video at the top. Who do you get to Govern? 

I give my allegiance to the King of Kings. He who shall come again will sweep away Prime Ministers and Presidents. I have little doubt He will sweep away all those men (and women) who are not of 'Goodwill' who populate our Departments of State.

Meanwhile a firm hand is needed and I would welcome a Morally Righteous King to Rule over Oz.

Not that I am putting m'self up for the job (I am a knackered old chap) but I do have experience.

I might be a bit terse in the first few years.

Drink up and pray for the day when my Supplier comes to take charge.


This is the 1000th post from the Tavern.

I am also pleased to say that we have just had our 400,000th customer take a tankard of fine ale to toast my Supplier.

That represents 400 'page views' per post overall, although the number has grown over time and some posts have had as many as 2500 visits.

Many thanks to all the readers and drinkers. Please continue to drop by.


  1. Hail sir knight. I am having trouble posting your comment. It is no less appreciated for that.

    1. I am pleased I could say something and hope it gets up. Meanwhile you are very fast off the mark, Mark, as I have just posted this post up and am still editing out all the damned typos I always find in the first day. After that, others tell me what I missed. Hahahaha

  2. Now, now, we have zero evidence or actual proof of who's a traitor and who isn't, yet, Amfortas, all we have is biased press and tweets that don't even make any sense - nor are we certain yet whether Trump himself isn't a traitor, but if you want to believe that anyway, go right ahead - but you may want to consider phrasing it as fact rather than opinion, then?

    And IMO, he's hardly draining the swamp, considering he's doing the bidding of those in the swamp for decades, now (the proof being he's pushing agendas swamp turtles who've been in Washington have wanted years ago but couldn't push through).

    I'm not sure why you're calling Obama's Executive Orders "decrees" but Trump's Executive Orders aren't - is your bias political or racial, which prevents you from seeing they are exactly the same thing? :)

    IMO, Executive Orders were abused by both Presidents, but I find it especially hypocritical from the Republican Party, since their whole party platform is smaller government, sorry.

    Either way, if we wanted a king, we wouldn't have struggled so hard for independence from one in 1776.

    Therefore, placing approval on "kingly" actions, now - except in rare circumstances (subduing violent actions and threats) - based on political bias and agendas, is anti-American, from either political side.

    And "morally righteous?" LOL By what standards?

    Certainly not Christian ones, according to the actual commandments, words and deeds of Christ.

    And speaking of the King of Kings sweeping away those who aren't of good will, IMO, I've really tried, but I've unfortunately not seen any evidence whatsoever that Trump is a "good will" ambassador for anything but himself and his own monetary interests, which is the complete opposite of anything Christ had to say. I'd be interested to see in your evidence to the contrary.

    1. Hahahaha. Great to see you Chrystal. Drinks on the house even for my fiercest, most reliable raven-haired critic. 400,00andsome. I can always count on you.

    2. ;)

      Congrats on the 1000th post :)

    3. Just like to add, here, that Trump's appointment as US Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has no educational background or experience whatsoever.

      You're welcome to check this out yourself - her only qualification for the job is apparently, she's just a billionaire campaign contributor to Trump and the GOP.

      During a time where education is more important than ever, and the safety of our students is more important than ever, her big plan for education is defunding public schools (which just started in Kentucky) and giving vouchers for home schools, but somehow she wants to arm guards or teachers to combat school shootings, without funding.

      You should ask my husband, from Michigan, about Betsy Devos - she's why he moved here. She made of mess of that state's educational system, after it was already troubled.

      And she's not the only of Trump's corrupt "Billionaire Cronyism Rewards" appointments that has no education or experience for the job - would you care for more examples? :)

      So yes, let's drain the swamp. Let's start with billionaire campaign contributors Trump appointed into high-paying government positions, with absolutely no education or experience in their fields whatsoever, who bought their positions/were rewarded for their loyalty.

      I nominate unqualified Betsy Devos to be the first of Trump's appointed swamp rats to go :)

    4. The main thrust of the post was on Oz and the DFAT. Yet you focus on Trump. He had a passing mention along with the British PM. I take what you say about Mrs de Vos. Does the head of the education dept ever know much about schools, apart from them being so wasteful of public monies and ineffective in teaching even the basics to children? Who would you suggest she be replaced by.

    5. As I've mentioned before, I cannot speak about the laws in Oz (or anywhere else) because I am ignorant to the s laws and culture, I must rely on biased press or subjective opinion blogs, and therefore just listen.

      I can only speak to MY countries leaders and laws, and did so because you mentioned it, and I gave you a bit more insight, actually living here :)

      As for who I would appoint, I would at the very least choose someone with at least a Master's in education and experience in teaching or education administration,for US Secretary of Education, wouldn't you?

      And again, how can we fund arming teachers and guards if we've defunded public schools, hm?

      (My husband just took a 3% pay cut.)

      C'mon, now, Amfortas - you know very well that isn't right. This is corrupt cronyism and campaign contribution rewards, it has nothing to do whatsoever with qualifications or draining swamp rats - check out her qualifications yourself, using the source of your choice - as well as how she put the nails in Michigan's education coffin. ;)

      And that is the problem with when we ignore Democracy altogether and put just one person in charge - nepotism and crony rewards. (Check out what happened to New York and Tammany Hall, that way.)

  3. Congratulations on your 1000th post and your impressive page views :-)

    1. Thank you. I am not at all sure if the page views number is indicative of popularity or otherwise. A chap does not usually get to know what 'traffic' others have.

  4. Foreign aid does more harm than good. It's important to understand that foreign aid isn't just useless, it's actively harmful. It distorts the economies of the recent countries. It helps to prop up inefficient and corrupt governments.

    It can even kill. If you give food aid to African countries you put local farmers out of business. You put local food distribution companies out of business. You put local grocery stores out of business. The end result is more hunger than you had in the beginning.

    The only people who benefit from foreign aid are the bureaucrats who adminster it and the do-gooders who get well-paid cushy jobs in aid agencies.

    1. Your rationales are sound. We have seen it happen time and time again. The fiasco of 'Live Aid' and its ilk, pushing pop stars' careers up the UN greasy pole, sending food to Somalia only to have it hijacked to feed the troops of warlords.

      There is a case to be made that justifies - even sanctifies - aid to nations hit by devastating natural disasters. But beyond that most aid is bribe. And as you say, the bureaucracy is the main and most transparent beneficiary. What actually happens to monies that get to the recipient bureaucracy's hand is rarely seen. Even private aid through such as 'Save the Children' run by luminaries like Tim Costello, are hijacked by terrorists in Gaza to fund rockets to kill Israelies. The end result of such misplaced 'good' is death to innocents.

  5. I'm very much a monarchist but the trouble with monarchy is that the British royal family has done so much to discredit the whole idea, from the time that the throne was usurped by that appalling German family in the early 18th century. People look at the wretched British monarchs that that family has produced and assume that all kings must be equally useless.

    People cannot even imagine the idea of a king prepared to take a stand on principle, or a king prepared to put the interests of the nation and the people ahead of the interests of the plutocracy.

    1. The British Royal Family may not be something to hold up as a positive example. It was the Monarchy relinquishing power to the commons that was supposed to have 'made things better'. That has not worked out too well. The current Queen has exercised what small influence she has but to little effect. I do not hold it against her.

      I have added a video near the start, for amusement.

    2. The British Royal Family may not be something to hold up as a positive example. It was the Monarchy relinquishing power to the commons that was supposed to have 'made things better'. That has not worked out too well.

      They accepted a devil's bargain. They were to be useless figureheads, enjoying immense wealth and privilege and all the trappings of royalty but without any of the substance. It's not surprising that they became decadent and degenerate.

      It's tragic for England because in the late 20th century the only institution that could have stood with the people and the nation against England's traitorous ruling class was the monarchy. They failed the test. They betrayed their sacred trust.

      To have acted would have been a risk. It would have been dangerous. But that's what kingship is all about. If you're too scared to act when the country needs you to act then you have no business being a king (or a queen).

    3. I am fairly confident that with my previous experience, I could have made a better job of it. But could you?


  6. I'm impressed, I have to admit. Seldom do I come acrosss a
    blog that's both equally educative and interesting, and without a
    doubt, you've hit the nail on the head. The issue is something that not
    enough folks are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy
    thast I found this during my hunt for something concerning this.

    1. I am glad. But if it is just something like this that you have been hunting for I hope you are also spending time playing snooker.

  7. Think they're going to be weeping again after 2018 mid-terms.

  8. One of your best amfortas! the Knight of logical conclusions.

    The drummer agrees...somehow, your Australia and our American 'swamp' has been filled with Marxists who have spread the hard earned tax dollars all over the world, while their own citizens suffer.

    A King would be preferred, but, as we have seen with the swamp, once in power, very few men or women can refuse the temptation to corruption. One good King is followed by one bad King who undos the good.

    So is the world of men and mice. Okay...mice are much more predictable.

    So far, President Trump has done a magnificent job with the vast world of Marxists after his head.

    And this nobody is GLAD he is not of the "educational" swamp which long ago, gave into their own greed and power.

    I disagree with the educational couple on your blog.

    I've yet to met a man or women here in America, with a Masters degree in anything but math, that had a lick of sense about anything practical.

    As Thomas Edison said long ago....the educational system was a horror to behold and taught NO man how to think and that was back in 1843.

    They might read some of HIS papers to figure out what happened. After all, he helped give them the light they read by.

    One word for them: Travistock Institute.

    Thanks amfortas, for letting us Americans know what's happening in YOUR part of the's much appreciated.

    Look into it.

    1. Thank you, m'dear. Yes, as I said many Kings have not acquitted themselves well and certainly no worse that modern Presidents and Prime Ministers. Yet the vast majority of 'citizens' need leadership. Most could not lead their way out of a wet paper bag. (Leaders and led both).

      Someone strong, moral, kind and very clever needs to Rule. And I am getting too old.

      The 'educational couple' above are likely to have some good points and I welcome them into the Tavern. Their politics are not compatible, for sure, but heck, my Supplier insists that I be kind even if not too clever. The marxists, socialists and Obarmists are sent to try us.

    2. Ah, when here earlier to pay homage to Billy Graham, I was confused by "the couple" statement and didn't realize it referred to the comment by my husband and me, my apologies.

      Actually, I agree in part, that some subjects don't need degrees to be successful, even math. For instance, my husband's grandfather became the largest tier supplier of lumber to the "Big Three" car companies in Detroit (as well as providing most pre-war lumber for construction to Detroit) never having finished school after 14 - but he was amazing at calculating the trig needed for buildings within seconds, as well as the amount of lumber required, and was always right on the money :)

      I did want to clarify, though, that I meant US Secretary of Education, not a general leader, in case I wasn't clear - because like you're suggesting, I've met many a good leader with little education.

      My grandfather, for instance, had only an 8th grade education and was the most intelligent person/best leader I've ever known.

      However, I do think some federal departments should have qualifications or standards for their particular departments, based on their education, experience or both, but maybe that's just me?

      I mean, I'm not sure I'd want a Average Joe The Mechanic to head up something like Secretary of Health and Human Services, or say someone like me - not only do I not have a Master's degree, either, I haven't the slightest idea what I'm doing, having no experience as a teacher! lol

      And I doubt if was an heiress to my dad's billionaire fortune like Betsy (which clearly I'm not), and contributed it to the GOP or Dems, that's going to suddenly make me more capable, either :)

      My husband is in IT and he can provide the technology for schools, but probably wouldn't think himself qualified to be US Secretary of Education, either.

      I get what you're saying, but I do get a little concerned with some other people, I've seen, it's like a new push for "teaching kids to work with their hands instead of college" and what at least appears to be shunning of further education or intellectualism in general.

      There are elitists intellectuals that annoy us all, and then some with great ideas, so I don't know if we can blanket-generalize and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      I get that not everyone can be an astrophysicist, but I do get a little nervous with that sort of encouragement coming from one particular political side of the other, just because some of those remind me a little of Communist mentality - encouraging everyone to be laborers, not thinkers, which makes me think of Pol Pot and Cambodia, yikes.

      Long story short, I agree that leaders don't need a Master's, but certain departments I do think require experts and proven standards for those experts, but like I said, maybe that's just me :)

    3. What degree would you think appropriate for a Presidente?

    4. Hmm, "designing" the perfect president, that's a tough one.

      As far as education, I guess a Master's in Economics might be helpful, particularly International Economics (because though we in the U.S. sometimes think it's "all about us," the fact is, what we do in America does seem to have domino effect on the world, it's really NOT all about us - but we should be conscious of how the choices we make affect others, IMO.)

      International Diplomacy, maybe, Constitutional Law (not like an ambulance-chasing lawyer), MBA in Business (heavy on ethics courses, please).

      And of course, military time - I really have a hard time with Presidents being Commander in Chief without at least some military experience, either party.

      Though confident, I think there should be at least a dash of of humility and nobility, they need to exhibit regularly that they understand they are a public servant.

      Taking responsibility for appointee and team failures, as leaders USED to do. I believe if you're a boss or coach, if the people you train or appoint fail, YOU fail.

      I promise you, if Trump said right now, "I made a mistake/wrong choice, I'm sorry, let me fix it" - I would gain a whole new respect for him.

      Volunteering some time with a charity of their choice, would be a bonus, proving they have empathy for other human beings, and not just those exactly like themselves - particularly Christian-based, would be a double-bonus.

      And perhaps experience as a cage-fighter might be helpful in this day and age? ;) JUST KIDDING. lol

      "Reality" TV stars need not apply ;)

      How about you, if you could design the perfect leader, what would they be like? :)

    5. Hahahaha. WELL DONE m'dear. There's a fine cocktail of your choice for that thoughtful comment.

      We had a Prime Minister like that. Tony Abbott. A good man. He was a volunteer fire-fighter and life guard at the beach (most of his life and in 'Office' too) and he quietly spent a week every year working in an Aboriginal community in the bush. No journos allowed. Now on the 'back benches' he continues his works of corporal mercy.

      His education was fine. Not sure what degrees he had. He did take responsibility for the drongos under his charge and they responded by knifing him in the back. The chief knifer is now the PM. Malcontent Turdball. His (Abbott's) deputy was a woman, Julie Bishop, who also stabbed Abbott, and who is now Turdball's 'foriegn minister'. Disloyalty is a curse affecting Oz politics at the moment. At least disloyalty and traitoring is gender non-specific.

      I do not think he served in the military. Most British Princes have maintained the tradition of being warriors. It surprises me that America has not had that quiet insistence from the hoi-poloi that leaders' sons (and today, daughters) should earn their spurs.

      The perfect leader cannot be found or made, but near enough would do for me. A leader though is only as good as those that follow. The 'common man and woman' are pretty miserable. I would be inclined to make Abbott A King for a five or ten year Monarch role, with regal powers and a 'Star Chamber'. You may think that a bit extreme but we have star chambers throughout our 'administration' in the form of 'tribunals' and the media. A King (were he me) would soon put them back in their box, less a few heads.

      Meanwhile 'm'dear, I sit and walk in this Valley of Tears, this Valley of the Shadow of Death, thankful that He is my Shepherd and I am a mean sonofabitch to boot. I await His coming back down to sort out the mess we have. I will trust His appointment of Kings to serve under Him.

    6. Hey, how come you guys and the UK get all the good ones? :)

      Well, I'm not sure if the King of Kings has much to do with who we put in power out of our free will, sometimes we've chosen some doozies lol. But I'm sure that in the end, his truth will prevail and is "marching on," like our Battle Hymn of the Republic says :)

      And I doubt you're a mean son of a gun, as you say. Just battle-weary, as we all are, in our various struggles in life :)

      Blessings for you today :)

    7. As for your comment elsewhere on Trump and his cronies (noticed you borrowed my word and that's okay;) versus transgendered people, you know, it is possible that neither side is the objective holder of truth and reality, and there may be different forms of mental illness on both sides.

      For example, abortion clinics and people that bomb them - in such situations, neither side may be sane or coming from a sane perspective, but both sides will say the other is insane and violent.

      However, these are extreme cases - most people and things are rarely black and white, always and never, either/or - most fit into gray areas.

      And I think if we limit sanity and morality JUST in terms of abortion and LGBTQ, we do Christianity a disservice because Christ stood for so much more.

      IMO, Donald Trump is the least sane and moral president in my lifetime, in terms of being out of touch with reality, spouting off his opinions without ever providing facts or proof, blaming/scapegoating everyone else for this country's problems, emotional lability/lack of self control, obsessed with his own popularity rather than larger world issues, etc.

      But then many of the people he's combatting are the same way.

      Thus, it's like fire trying to put out fire, and the last time I checked, fire doesn't put on fire, water does - so perhaps if we could dial down the crazy, fiery people in charge and stopped electing the craziest inmates to run to quit running the asylum on both sides, we'd get somewhere.

      Trump's just fueling the fire, IMO, he's an escalator, not a descalator. I'm not sure he understands that you can disagree with someone without name-calling and demeaning them, banning everything they do, say, and want, or threatening "fire and fury" or sue people who criticize you.

      I'm sorry, but IMO, that's not how sane Christians behave - and there is no justification for his behavior or following suit. IMO, he's just a few steps shy the unstable sort who'd engineer bombing an abortion clinic to stop abortion.

      Trump's behavior is not okay, not sane, not Christian- and I can't pretend it is, just because I agree with a couple of his political points.

      Just my opinion, though :)

    8. Oh dear. ""For example, abortion clinics and people that bomb them"" What a point to raise. I always groan when someone resorts to that. Millions of babies torn to death by 'sane' ordinary doctors and women, but you have to mention the statistically insignificant number of mad people who have bombed abortuaries. Oy Vey. Just how many abortuaries have been 'bombed' Chrystal?

    9. Amfortas - Remember, I was threatened by my older sister to have an abortion.

      Her specific words were, "Kill that baby before it grows up to be a loser like you. And if you don't, I'll never speak to you again."

      Of course, I didn't - and I haven't spoken to my sister in years and don't care if I ever do again.

      Thus, please don't throw me in an "either/or" box - I have personally earned the right not to be shoved in that box you're trying to squish me in, plus I don't fit neatly in boxes in general, most people don't, that was my point :)

      Having said that, to answer your question, in the US, depending upon your source, 7-15 acts of criminal violence towards abortion clinics and doctors.

      And, as you said, millions more unecesssary abortions.

      I can think both are wrong, Amfortas, as premeditated violence and/or murder is never okay, on either side - that was my point.

      Hopefully, if you've shaken off your cognitive dissonance enough to realize I don't have to always pick one side on everything, and allow gray areas, would you mind having another read of my comment to see if you can see that, now? :)

    10. Chrystal, I salute your courage and fidelity in refusing to be cowed into an abortion. I am not trying to put you into a box when I simply remark that you are reading from one of the box lids.

    11. I guess I'm not sure what lid you think I'm reading incorrectly?

      I said there were a few instances of violence on the anti-abortion side, but millions of instances on the abortion side?

      Is it the ratio or ?

      I guess what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter what the ratio is - dehumanizing/objectifying babies or adults to justify treating them badly happens on both sides - both sides even commit violence against them (or are prepared to) - and it's not okay, there IS no justification for it.

      And contrary to popular belief, I do not have to go along with every single issue my party shoves in my face and check every box, nor do I have to fight against every issue in the other party - each issue is independent of one another, people are individuals before the groups they belong to. So it's really issue by issue, for me.

      I think for myself and nobody, from either party, is going to "cow" me into total party agreement, in one box or the other, just because I don't agree with them on one particular item on their political hit list, just to prove something to themselves about people who hold a dissimilar opinion to themselves on an issue, so they can feel morally superior and justify treating people unlike themselves badly.

      Similarly, we cannot assume that everyone that DOES share a certain pinion on a political item is "just like us," and automatically sane or nonviolent, as much as we may want to.

      On that note, I neglected to mention a couple of things - the first is I've actually heard someone threat to shoot an abortion doctor.

      This is Guntucky, Amfortas, not Oz. Just because someone here in Kentucky may agree with you doesn't mean they'll handle it as gentlemanly as you would. It's a different culture, here. My state is a particular angry, violent shade of red. You may forget, these are predominantly "from the mountains" folk.

      Secondly, I want to be clear - I am against public funding for abortion, but am open to privately-funded abortions for uncommon circumstances, NOT used as birth control.

      Mostly, however, what I would like everyone to know is that women, or girls, in this situation, will receive shaming either way.

      They'll get shame from either side, not only for nonmarital sex, but because they had a child they couldn't support financially alone, and as a result, at some point, may need at least some public assistance.

      So IMO, perhaps if we all focused on encouraging women who've found themselves in this situation, rather than shaming them - to include otherwise not helping to provide financial options to support them after the child is born, we'd make more headway against abortion.

      Because if it hadn't been for my soul saying not to abort my daughter? Had it not been for Christ in my heart?

      I would've aborted her, believing my sister, that I was a loser and the baby would be better off in heaven without me, the loser.

      Only Christ alone encouraged me and gave me hope, in that situation, no one else did on either political side.

      So it wasn't my own "bravery," it was Christ - and so I have only him to thank for the most beautiful blessing in my life :)

      Thanks for listening/allowing. Night.


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..