PUBLISHED: 5:31 PM 18 Dec 2017

JUST IN: Report Shows “Permanent Government” In Control As Obama Policy Secretly Enacted

Commerce Secretary and Trump appointee Wilbur Ross, whose department oversees the NOAA, is walking a very careful line between altering findings and having an executive agency purposely acting in direct contradiction to the President. It is difficult, and made all the more so by the fact that firing the bureaucrats actively attempting to undermine the Trump agenda would be media fodder for months.

Commerce Secretary and Trump appointee Wilbur Ross, whose department oversees the NOAA, is walking a very careful line between altering findings and having an executive agency purposely acting in direct contradiction to the President. It is difficult, and made all the more so by the fact that firing the bureaucrats actively attempting to undermine the Trump agenda would be media fodder for months.

As the presidential election of 2016 drew near, the left had no fear that Trump would win.  And why should they?  The polls said they were certain to win, leading statisticians said they were likely to win, and every talking head in the news said that Hillary was likely to cruise to an easy victory over Donald J. Trump. Then Hillary lost, failing to carry states in the Midwest that were long thought to be reliably Democrat-leaning.  Shortly thereafter, the DNC openly called for total revolt against President Trump.

Since then, Democrat bureaucrats have been going insane trying to undermine Trump in every way that they can.  And to be fair to Trump, he continues to handle it with aplomb.  However, it’s not just Democrats in the media that are seeking to undermine him; he is facing resistance and sabotage from bureaucrats hired and appointed during the Obama administration.

Bureaucrats at the Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, contradicted the White House when they issued a report that countered Trump White House claims that banking regulation has a negative effect on the banking industry and business as a whole. Their report was heavily opinion-based, being more qualitative than quantitative, and ignoring many failings of banking regulations.

Professor David Lewis of Vanderbilt University believes that the ability of bureaucrats to slow down the agenda of a president is a positive thing, allowing them to give the president and their appointed leadership chances to reconsider. It’s interesting to see a Poli-Sci professor defending the idea that elected officials should be thankful that they can be sabotaged by unelected bureaucrats.

Then there’s the work of Obama-era State Department embassy staff, which continues to keep costly Obama-era programs designed to boost the economies of growing ‘developing’ countries on the United States taxpayer’s dime. Keeping those programs running is costing money that could be better spent elsewhere, and in many cases the countries are not even thankful (and may even spend the money on other pursuits than peaceful economic exchange).

Most notable, however, is the desire of unelected bureaucrats to undermine Trump on policy concerning climate change (which has been called global warming and global cooling in the past, having recently changed to climate change as a means of hedging the bets of climate scientists who have proven to be less effective at predicting climate or weather than most gamblers are at picking winning Powerball numbers). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been undermining Trump’s stance that anthropogenic climate change is negligible tooth and nail, regularly commissioning and releasing contrary reports.

Obama-era bureaucrats also continue to propagate the idea that ‘renewable energy’ can be made cost-efficient at this point, even though numbers have yet to add up.  The GSA, which oversees the US fleet of cars for government workers, refuses to abandon plans to buy overpriced electric cars, showing less interest in saving money than in adhering to an unproven claim that cars are killing the planet.

Part of the reason that so many federal agencies are undermining the president is that their leadership still comes from the Obama years, and are likely left-leaning bureaucrats who don’t agree with Trump’s policies. It has been hard for Trump to appoint anyone, especially when his appointees receive such strenous and aggressive fights against their confirmation.

Through it all, left-leaning academics and talking heads make excuses for bureaucrats continuing to undermine the president and their bosses.  As David Lewis, who chairs the Poli-Sci department at Vanderbilt University, attempts to defend, “[the bureaucrats] know a lot more than the political appointees who come into the agencies. That gives them an advantage.”  David Lewis goes on to claim that by slowing down the work of their bosses and the President, executive agency bureaucrats are giving them the chance to ‘reflect’ on their policies.  Or, in other words, unelected bureaucrats are able to stall whatever they like as long as they like.

Part of the issue is that Trump has been slow to appoint new heads to executive agency departments.  These heads of the department have the power to censure (or fire) their employees for going against the stated agenda of the President, but Trump has left many appointees from the Obama years in place, or has accepted their resignations and allowed their deputy department heads, who tend to have been Obama fans as well, to continue operating the agency in lieu of making an appointment.

Part of Trump’s reticence to appoint new individuals to executive agencies is no doubt due to the absurd amount of contention that his appointments have received thus far.  Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch was hounded in his appointment hearings, even being insulted and having his legal opinions picked apart by brilliant legal minds such as Al Franken (who, even with a primer written for him by a law school, couldn’t understand basic legal concepts).  Other appointees, such as Betsy DeVos, were insulted throughout the process by people whose most impressive accomplishments in education tend to be getting the endorsement of teacher’s unions (an accomplishment which only requires running as a Democrat).

Betsy DeVos was Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Education. Even though she had a history in education and in running charter schools (and lobbying for them), Democrats insisted that she was not fit for the position, and fought her confirmation tooth and nail. Even after her confirmation, Democrats continue to attack her almost constantly.

During the Obama years, Obama and his department heads worked to push out anyone who didn’t agree with the DNC party line, including gutting the Department of Justice in D.C. of anyone who was politically to the right of Hillary Clinton and replacing them with hardcore leftists who had histories of working with socialist and communist organizations.  When the media is willing to look the other way on such actions, it’s much easier to re-work entire department staffs.  Now, however, under the full scrutiny of left-leaning media, Trump would be unable to effect such change.

The idea that the will of elected officials can be undermined by unelected bureaucrats is one that should be hateful to any constitutionalist.  Government ought bend to the will of the people, not to the demands of bureaucrats who managed to get a job where they are impossible to fire.