You know, the ones that want to get a foreign posting at the State Department, maybe work in an embassy somewhere before moving up the ladder and getting a gig with some real ability to change the world.
I feel sorry for them because the world simply doesn’t operate like that.
It’s not how much you know or how much you studied a country in college, or even how much time you put in overseas or how many languages you speak.
Nope, it’s all about money.
I know this because when it comes to the top ambassador positions, it’s not qualifications that get you the job, it’s how much money you give to the Democrats.
We know this from news reports that came out today…but since Democrats don’t like the messenger we’ll just ignore the message.
One analyst in the piece I’ll mention says that the democrats are “blaming the messenger to revert the attention from the message.”
I read that in an article that was not kind to the national Democrats.
Here in Montana this is a common practice – when news that’s not kind to the Democrats come out, Democrats attack the messenger.
We see this happening right now on MT Cowturd, and we’ll get to that shortly.
First, the article above is talking about all the high-dollar donors that were given high political positions in government, and sometimes even ambassadorships.
It’s called This is How Much It ‘Costs’ To Get An Ambassadorship: Guccifer 2.0 Leaks DNC ‘Pay-To-Play’ Donor List.
It appears on Zero Hedge, and since that’s a site that Democrats decided long ago is full of bullshit and nothing else, why not just ignore it?
The messenger is no good, and that means this message is bullshit…right?
I mean, we’ll just go with what interim DNC chair Donna Brazile has to say:
The “DNC is a victim of a crime,” one perpetrated by “Russian state-sponsored agents,” and let’s not forget that “it is common for Russian hackers to forge documents.”
Well, I’m glad we cleared that up.
Because Russia was supposedly involved, there’s absolutely no truth to the claims that:
- Matthew Barzun gave $3.5 million to the DNC and was given the UK ambassador position because of it.
- Julius Genachowski gave $3.4 million to the DNC and was given the FCC chairman position because of it.
- Frank Sanchez gave $3.4 million to the DNC and was given the under secretary of commerce position because of it.
- Kirk Wagner gave $2.3 million to the DNC and was given the Singapore ambassador position because of it.
I think you get the idea.
Of course, according to top-ranking Democrats, this is totally false.
The spreadsheet that lists the dollar amounts raised is a forgery and this nonsense is just being pushed by the rightwing and alt-right media.
That’s what Democrats say, and I have to applaud them for that.
Like most humans, when Democrats get caught with their hand in the cookie jar they make excuses and try to do just about anything to make you give up common sense and even stop believing in the power of your own eyes.
We see this in Montana right now, for Justin Robbins has a post up on Cowturd bashing the IR’s James DeHaven…as Robbins previously did in April when another not-so-kind article appeared about Montana Democrats.
Honestly, I have no idea who Justin Robbins is or how he got to such an exalted position in the party that he’s occasionally called upon to make a guest post on their mouthpiece blog.
The post that Robbins has up is called DeHaven’s Deferred Decorum, and it starts off by decrying the decline of the print media before mentioning that the IR “rid themselves of talent and integrity” before bringing “fact-phobic conspiracy theorist James DeHaven” on board.
Robbins mentions DeHaven’s “innuendo-laden diatribes” – the article he put up in April – before mentioning his new article, “a study in shoddy journalism.”
Robbins primarily doesn’t like DeHaven’s latest article because it weaves “vague allegations,” has “unfollowed leads” and leaves us with “unanswered questions.”
Put altogether and Robbins describes the article as “a knitted bag of hot gas.”
After telling us that his post is not “an ad hominem attack”
Robbins lectures us on ethics.
By the sixth paragraph of the post Robbins finally gets into what DeHaven is talking about in his article.
That article is called Top Montana Officials Accused of Stifling DPHHS Auditors’ Work and appeared in the IR on Sunday.
In the article we’re told that Wendie Fredrickson, an audit reviewer for the Department of Public Health and Human Services, saw many incidences of fraud, which she claims came right from the governor’s office.
DeHaven “seems to take her at her word,” Robbins mentions, which is often what reporters will do when talking with high-ranking or formerly high-ranking government officials.
Fredrickson alleges that “hefty checks” were sent out to “important Democratic voting blocs on the Indian reservations” and that these checks were sent out because people were “acting on orders from Bullock.”
So that’s corruption.
We’re told that Fredrickson as well as “at least seven long-tenured state employees” talked about this and “raised red flags before they were demoted or fired.”
Three of them were accused of insubordination for speaking out against this corruption.
Much of this corruption goes back to the time when Bullock was Attorney General.
Bullock said he was aware of these concerns over corrupt payments to Indians for votes, and that’s why he sent those concerns to the Legislative State Auditor.
I don’t know who the Legislative State Auditor was at the time, but today it’s someone that Bullock appointed earlier this summer.
To me, that’s a huge conflict of interest and it says to me that no corruption will be found as Bullock engineered it that way with his appointments.
Besides the payouts to Indians for their votes we have state contractors asking state workers to “clean up” their books as well as Helena vendors getting “millions of dollars in federal stimulus funds” that were supposed to go to “help families pay winter heating expenses.”
So not only do we have Montana Democrats giving money to Indians so they’ll vote for Democrats, we have Montana Democrats funneling federal money to their friends instead of giving it to poor families that just want to stay warm in the winter.
That’s not all.
In Columbia Falls a vendor spent $536,000 on sheet metal, a forklift and a front-end loader instead of the “financial literacy and job training programs” it was meant for.
I’m not done yet.
More than $4 million in federal money for “enrolling low income children in Medicaid” was instead used to “disability, drug addiction and senior care vendors.”
When the Montana Development Center closed down “seven disability services contractors” were set to profit, and that’s after they’d already “double- and triple-counted expenditures” so they could profit themselves even more.
Robbins concludes his post by once again mentioning DeHaven’s “complete lack of journalistic integrity.”
Robbins’ post got 1 Facebook like and 9 comments.
One of those comments mentions the fact that DeHaven “won a prestigious Ancil Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism” recently.
To that Robbins asks, “how many awards do you need before you’re qualified to print vague innuendo and stop checking your sources?”
Another commenter mentioned that “perhaps where there is smoke there is fire,” in relation to the DeHaven piece and the charges of corruption that it brought up.
This commenter was quickly chided for their opinion, being asked, “is there a point in your comment here other than at the end of a run on sentence?”
Alright, to me it’s clear that any kind of negative piece that paints Montana Democrats in a bad light – whether on a blog or in a newspaper or on the TV – will be pushed back against.
Most of the time, and I’ve been the target of this, the Montana Democrats will attack the messenger and totally ignore the message.
That’s exactly the same tactic we see at the national level when it comes to the corruption of Democrats, as we saw earlier with the pay-to-play appointments process.
It makes me sick.
Despite that, I don’t see anything changing.
No investigations into this will take place and Bullock will likely win again in November.
The corruption will continue.
It’ll continue nationally if Hillary wins as well.
I don’t really mind her winning as I feel that could be one of the best things for the country.
I feel she’ll do such a horrendous job that Americans will finally wake up and start voting third-party.
Trump will probably get the popular vote, but Hillary will get the electoral. I’m sure there’ll be recounts in Florida, Ohio, and maybe Pennsylvania too.
Of course, if Trump is shown to be winning, that’ll be chalked-up to interference by the Russians.
Here in Montana I’m not sure how my life will be different come May 2017, either, when the legislative session ends.
I don’t think it will, and most Montanans will say the same.
We’ll continue to struggle with low wages, few if any benefits, and a broken healthcare system.
Veterans will continue to be ignored while overseas we create even more veterans through our senseless wars that profit Big Oil and Big Pharma.
More and more young people will leave the state and more and more rich transplants will come in.
Over time the safe rocks of blue in the cities will be eroded by the continuous red waves coming from the sea of rural Republicanism that covers the state.
With stories of Democratic corruption both nationally and in Montana, I feel Montana Democrats can do little in the face of this.
Oh, they could change and stop being corrupt…but we both know that’ll never happen with the current people in power.
So we sit and we wait and we bide our time.
I’m extremely confident that things will change for the better.
That change will be rough and turbulent and most of those currently in power will not like it.
For you and I, however, it’ll be great – we’ll get our state and country back.
It’s coming…it always does.