Category: Politics

Slippery slope

People are (or should be) smart enough to know to whom they should listen; it is not necessary for anyone to be silenced, no matter how heinous you believe their speech. That doesn’t stop some; this Fox News article identifies a businessman who has been the target of anti-free-speech advocates who have attempted to shut down his business for voicing support for some of President Trump’s policies. At least one report claims that the protestors went so far as to throw feces at the establishment. Even if you disagree with Trump’s policies, this action is unconscionable; how would you feel if those who support your candidate were shut down by ranting picketers throwing feces? How do you want to be treated when popular opinion shifts and you find that it is your opinion being attacked?

It gets worse: The local chamber of commerce decided to revoke the business’ membership for the owner exercising their constitutionally-guaranteed right to express their support for certain policies of the current administration. Doesn’t that make the chamber of commerce a political, rather than business, organization? I wonder if that will affect their tax status….

Flint water crisis

I heard this audio session on NPR today, and I was amazed at how the article was able to ignore or distort relevant facts surrounding the Flint water crisis. For instance, from the accompanying author interview article highlights:

1) The crisis was brought about by Flint city managers, whose inability to contain costs and balance the city budget led to near insolvency and resulted in the appointment of an emergency manager.

2) The highlights completely ignored the fact that Flint planned to build a new pipeline to Lake Huron for their water supply (and not use Flint River water) via the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA).

3) That the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) cancelled Flint’s water contract with one years notice (as was required under the contract) upon learning of Flint’s plan to change water sources and subsequent unsuccessful negotiation with Flint to retain their business. Some saw this one year termination notice as a retaliatory action by DWSD against Flint, as it was well known that it would take 2.5 years to complete the pipeline to Lake Huron. The DWSD contract termination left the city with little choice but to tap the Flint River temporarily.

So let’s see if I’ve got this right: A Democrat-controlled city failed to balance it’s budget, leading to an emergency manager looking for ways to cut costs. They found a way to cut water costs, but a vindictive Democrat-controlled Detroit water utility forced Flint to use Flint River water until the new water pipeline was ready. And now it’s all the fault of the Republican Governor for appointing the emergency manager??

Why is no one attacking the DWSD for cancelling their contract with Flint? If Flint’s water contract with DWSD had been allowed to continue until the new pipeline had been built none of this would have happened and Flint would now be enjoying less expensive water from their new Lake Huron source.

I think the following quote from a Michigan Radio article says a lot:

“A spokesman says the Detroit water department will have to look at its options to try and recoup investments made to Flint’s water system.”

Seems like fighting words to me….

Nanny state run amok

Citing health study, Lancaster mayor wants to ban workplace necktie requirements in the city

Why do politicians feel the need to control all aspects of our lives? Why not leave it up to us whether or not we want to wear a tie?

It’s funny that they they want to ban neck ties… while in the same breath they legalize marijuana. Just proof that it’s all really about control.

How liberty is lost

The partisan politics we have experienced as of late are bad enough, but the escalating efforts to circumvent checks and balances in place for decades, if not (in some form) for hundreds of years, has left us with the tyranny of the majority. This means that once either side has a majority, no matter how slim, they can ignore their political counterparts in other parties (and their respective constituents) and simply do as they please. No longer will any attempt be made, not even for the sake of appearances, to obtain a consensus between legislators. This has created a very dangerous time in America for personal freedom and liberty.

The current state of government has been brewing for a bit. It started when Harry Reid utilized the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules; this change allowed President Obama to stack the lower federal courts with left-leaning judges. It allowed a simply senate majority (rather than a super-majority of 60) to end a filibuster and force a vote for appointments to important judicial positions. Such appointments should rightfully demand some consensus among senators to insure that the entire population is represented in the appointment.

Republicans later used their own form of the nuclear option to alter the rules for confirming Supreme Court justices, a move designed to counter successful stacking of the lower courts by the Democrats (but I doubt that the Democrats would agree with this assessment). This rule change extended that previously made by Democrats to include Supreme Court confirmations.

The rules that were changed by both parties via the nuclear option had been in place in some form for over 200 years, and acted to protect the minority positions in our country from the tyranny of a small majority. Given that neither rule has been restored to its original form, our slide into tyranny continues. Only now, the stakes are increasing.

The latest danger to our democracy is another threat from Democrats, this time to “stack” the Supreme Court to thwart the actions of a duly-elected President. In this scenario they would – if able to obtain a slim majority in both houses and also the presidency – vote to increase the number of Supreme Court justices. This would give a Democrat president the ability to appoint additional justices and skew the court in any direction they wish. While this is allowed under the constitution, the current Supreme Court justice count has remained the same for 150 years and all attempts since 1868 to stack the court have been thwarted. This begs the question: When will it end? Do the Democrats really believe that the Republicans will not do the same when they have power? How far will these efforts escalate before their insanity is recognized?

Now is the time to restore a thoughtful Democracy to the United States – one where some level of decorum and consensus is required for the advancement of laws and judicial appointments. The Senate should restore past cloture rules before it’s too late, so that the minority is not a forgotten component of our legislative system.

End the tyranny of the majority now!

Californian’s have been sold out…!

California’s Gov. Brown has signed a legislative bill to prevent any new local taxes on “sugary” drinks (for 12 years, anyway). Why, you might ask, would California pass such a ban? After all, don’t they like taxing the public?

As a matter of fact, they do – and that’s why they passed the bill. A coalition that included beverage manufacturers had managed to place an initiative measure on the November ballot that would have required a 2/3 majority for any future taxes/tax increases (replacing the current simple majority rule). In return for the sugary drink ban being passed, the coalition agreed to formally withdraw the initiative.

Oh – and the public got screwed. If the ballot measure had gone through and passed, “sugary” drink taxes would have been banned anyway. In this case the only real winner is the beverage industry.

Fortunately, California has an initiative process that is open to all, not just the beverage industry. I hope that the estimated one million people who signed the petition for the initiative pick up the ball and run with it anyway. It would be poetic justice.

Don’t be fooled by the “USA Act”

The USA Act, or the Uniting and Securing America Act, is a piece of bi-partisan (though barely…) legislation for dealing with the DACA issue. However, it is hardly an ideal solution and contains numerous legal loopholes that will frustrate both parties (and many Americans!) when they are abused. For instance:

1) This legislation gives immense power to the Secretary of Homeland Security (a partisan appointment!) to waive provisions of the act. For instance, the Secretary may waive virtually all of the disqualifying conditions for conditional permanent residency under the act for almost any reason, including :

“…for humanitarian purposes, family unity, or if the waiver is otherwise in the public interest….”

A blanket order by the Secretary could result in criminal aliens with felony convictions being granted continuous conditional permanent residency rather than being deported. This is a provision that I predict will be leveraged by those otherwise eligible for deportation. It will probably also encourage them to have children as soon a possible so as to leverage the “family unity” provision.

2) A conditional permanent resident convicted of domestic violence could fend off removal by claiming:

“…having been a victim herself or himself of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, child abuse or neglect, elder abuse or neglect, human trafficking, having been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty…”

Don’t think false claims of abuse will happen? Think again; how many are now claiming asylum after being coached by immigration lawyers at the Mexico – U.S. border? Think they won’t coach their clients on this loophole, too?

3) There are no limits to the number admitted under this act:

“Nothing in this section or in any other law may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on the number of aliens who may be granted permanent resident status, on a conditional basis or otherwise, under this title.

Note the key text here: “…or in any other law…”. Ouch! No limits, ever!

4) A conditional permanent resident status SHALL be made permanent if:

“…the removal of the alien from the United States would result in extreme hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a national of the United States or is lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”

This is another section likely to be abused by those otherwise eligible for removal, such as convicted felons. Note that removal is stopped if it creates a hardship for the alien subject to deportation! Also note that the relief is mandatory; “shall” removes any question as to this being optional.  The Secretary or the Attorney General will have no option but to grant permanent, unconditional residency status under this section.

There are other substantial issues with this legislation. I urge you to contact your congressman and let them know that you want them to oppose the USA Act.

You can read about it here for yourself.

It’s not your party

Instead, the Democratic party belongs to those who are in charge. It’s more like an oligarchy or a patriarchy/monarchy than a democratically operated political party. Want proof? Think Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, the 2016 presidential election, and super-delegates.

Want more proof? How about this new rule change to make sure you don’t get another chance at Bernie:

DNC Rule Change May Block Bernie Sanders from Running as Democrat in 2020

Don’t be sheeple, people.

Ranked voting

This sounds too much like second-chance voting to me. And I’ll bet those supporting it have already figured out how to game the system.

My biggest fear is that this will be used to allow marginal career politicians to keep their job, while at the same time turning competition into an advantage. Here’s how I see it working for this purpose:

For argument purposes, and to avoid partisan accusations, we’ll call our political parties  “up” and “down” rather than “left” and “right” (but not necessarily in that order!). Say that your “down” candidate is an unpopular, incumbent moron that no one likes, but who is too powerful to deny a place in the race. Running as the lone candidate for your party, however, will not energize the party base and will likely result in lower turnout. Let’s say that in a full-turnout match that the “down” party has a clear 55/45 advantage. Let’s also say also that about 30% of the “down” base will simply stay home on election day rather than vote for the moron, giving the “up” party a 45% to 38.5% win.

Say as a hedge you run another candidate from the “down” party in addition to the incumbent.  They can’t win, but they are selected because they appeal to the voters who would likely stay home rather than vote for the moron. However, since they are voting anyway (and since they are rabid “down” party members who would rather kill themselves than vote for an “up” candidate), they rank the other “down” party candidate (the moron) as their second choice. Now, when neither party gets a 50% majority, the “down” party incumbent acquires the votes from the 2nd “down” party candidate, thereby pulling a rabbit from the hat and netting a 55-45 win. Note that the incumbent didn’t win because he was the most popular, but instead because the party base was energized to vote (for someone else!) resulting in a higher turnout.

Only fives minutes in and I’ve already figured out one way to game the system. I wonder how long it will take the professionals?.