Category: Politics

The irresponsible Eric Holder

Obama AG Eric Holder questions legitimacy of Supreme Court after Kavanaugh confirmation

The fact is that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh occurred exactly as prescribed under the Constitution of the United States and is therefor legitimate, regardless of whether or not Eric Holder agrees. His approval is not required.

A stable government is a fragile thing; in part it depends greatly on the people’s perception of the government as legitimate. It was irresponsible and petty for former AG Eric Holder to question the legitimacy of our highest court simply because he did not like the outcome of the confirmation hearings. Holder’s statement is simply the sign of a sore loser; remember that when he runs for President.

Demo-nazis?

Doesn’t anyone but me recognize these tactics as those of the “Brown shirts” from Nazi Germany? Not allowing some to speak, and accosting those who do, simply because you do not agree with what they say? How do these actions honor the freedom of speech upon which the first amendment is based?

Ted Cruz latest Republican accosted after Maxine Waters’ call for confrontation

Way to teach personal responsibility…

California lawmakers vote to delay school start times to allow students to get more sleep

I don’t understand this, unless it’s aimed at buying the votes of soon-to-be 18 year old  high school students. I mean, come on… if they are so irresponsible that they can’t manage their sleeping schedule now, how does this improve their situation?

Rewarding those who fail by making failure the norm is not a solution to this problem.

Fake news

Judge Kavanaugh, in response to a question Kamala Harris posed during his confirmation hearing regarding a specific case, summarized the case using the same terms as used in the actual court decision when describing the position of the petitioner. Kamala Harris then posts a video of his response conveniently misrepresenting the response as his own, instead of as that of the petitioner. However, she was not the only one to twist his words. Planned Parenthood actually went further and released an edited version of a video that removed key words so as to make his review of the case appear to be his own opinion.

No matter your opinion on Brett Kavanaugh, abortion, Planned Parenthood or Kamala Harris, we should demand the truth from all so that we can make our own decisions based on actual facts. Beware those who twist the words of others to gain your favor via fear and lies; these are the tools of oppressors, not those who seek to further liberty.

The wrong way

Bernie Sanders, the “democratic” socialist, is now proposing the BEZOS act (a not-so-subtle jab at Amazon’s Jeff Bezos). This act aims to tax businesses for those  in their employ who also receive government subsidies. However, I see a couple of issues with this law:

  1. Amazon and others, as well as their employees, are already taxed so as to provide these benefits. How about instead of adding more government overhead and taxes, we provide Amazon with tax credits for employing people at levels where they no longer require public assistance? For everyone an employer removes from public assistance, we should give them a credit equal to the gross savings (including the government overhead associated with administering the benefits).
  2. The idea for this law is potentially based on reports that many Amazon workers also depend on public assistance. For instance, this article claims that 10% of Amazon employees in Pennsylvania also depend on government assistance. Coincidentally, this same article notes that 90% of Amazon employees are full-time, leaving the 10% noted as potentially part-time employees who would be much more likely to receive government benefits.
  3. People may be working part-time for reason unrelated to their employer. If Amazon is penalized for hiring these part-time workers then it is likely they will hire full-time workers in their place, leaving these former part-time employees relying solely on government assistance at possibly higher levels than before.

Socialism is not the answer, people. Lower taxes and less government overhead leave more resources for truly productive work that will benefit all. Let’s work on that instead of new punitive taxes, regulations, and government overhead.

Anonymity of the Press

I am troubled by the New York Times anonymous op-ed piece regarding President Trump. Not because of what it contains, but because of the inability to defend oneself against such an anonymous attack. The piece supposedly comes from a “senior official in the Trump administration”, but gives no other information on the source. Is this person partisan? Where they appointed by a previous administration? Do their loyalties lay with another party or politician? Are they in fact privy to the kinds of information and knowledge sufficient to support their claims in this piece? And just what is a “senior official”, anyway?

How do you defend yourself against such an attack without bringing to light the motives and claims of the attacker? And how is that possible with an anonymous author? How would you see this case if it was you being disparaged by an anonymous foe that you could neither question or refute?

Even if every word turns out to be true, I will never again pick up a New York Times. It not the story that is upsetting; it’s that there is no recourse for the accused, and that is simply not right.

Does Citibank oppose the 2nd amendment?

I wonder what the fallout would be if they decided to oppose the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments? Or perhaps the 14th? But it’s OK if they trash the 2nd…

Announcing Our U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy

I’ve made sure I am no longer doing business with Citibank. They don’t need to worry about my minor potential contribution to their bottom line any more. I urge all of you to divest yourself of Citibank holdings and financial instruments.

How to win a seat in congress

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has pulled off a maneuver reminiscent of something found in a Saul Alinsky playbook. Ocasio-Cortez used an often ignored statistic to her advantage: fewer voters turn our for primaries than actual elections. In fact, barely 13% of registered democrats showed up for the Ocasi-Cortez primary. This enabled a small small but fervent band of her followers to propel her to victory over her more more moderate democratic opponent.

The 14th congressional district in New York is heavily skewed democrat. Fanatically democrat. It is highly unlikely that a republican will ever win this district. So what’s the probable outcome? Even though it is likely that the majority of people in this district would not have supported Ocasio-Cortez, they now have no choice: It’s either Ocasio-Cortez or a republican. That’s a no-brainer for these voters.

I imagine no one thought that an incumbant would lose, and so they stayed home rather than vote. And I’m sure Ocasio-Cortez’ campaign team knew this, and realized that they could win the primary (and thus the election for this district) by mobilizing a much smaller force than would have been necessary under normal circumstances. Thus, a mere 7% share of the population of the district was able to send their desired candidate to congress.

See why it’s so important to vote, even in the primaries?