Category: Politics

Political posturing at its worst

Sally Yates, the acting AG, has instructed her staff to not defend President Trump’s executive order on immigration. From her statement:

“…I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right…”

The AG does not make law (that’s the legislative branch), nor do they act as the final interpreter of laws (that’s the judicial branch). It is the AG’s  role to defend the laws of the United States (there you go: the executive branch), a role that would require her to support a lawful executive order whether or not she felt that it was the “right” thing to do. Her insistence that she alone decides which laws to support amounts to nothing more than a political attack on the Presidency.

Note, too, that she does not claim that the executive order is illegal (and the White House states that it was cleared by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel), merely that she is “not convince” of it’s legality:

“At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful…”

Just where in the Constitution does it says that a legal order issued by the President has to be cleared by the AG? Yates’ statement was very unprofessional and politically motivated, and it is my belief that she is simply posturing for a new political position. After all, what has she got to lose? Her job? That’s gone already.

My bet is that we’ll see her name on a ballot someplace real soon….

About that picture….

There has been quite a ruckus about the student picture hung at the capital depicting police as some sort of warthog or pig [Fox News] [Eugene Volokh]. I agree that such a painting is inappropriate for the capital of our country, as it serves to divide rather than unify. However, the most important point is being missed: the people of this particular congressional district in Missouri are so disenchanted with their police departments that this is how they view their officers. Perhaps this, rather than where the painting hangs, is the more important issue to resolve.

A particularly troubling quote…

In a recent article regarding the future impact of the “nuclear option” employed by the Democrats in 2013, I stumbled upon this rather troubling quote from Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley:

“We live in a country as a democracy where a simple majority is the vision of how we make decisions. The majority makes decisions, not the minority.”

But isn’t that the problem with pure democracies? Any time power changes hands with even the smallest majority, everything can swing the other way. That’s why our system of government includes a constitution that requires a significant majority to alter. If the opposition (a really bad, “us-vs-them” term if you ask me…) obtains a small majority in the next election they can’t suddenly assert that our right to free speech is moot, or determine that our right to be free from unreasonable searches is unnecessary, or decide that our right to defend ourselves with suitable arms can be abridged.  The result is that in important decisions a consensus must be achieved.  This is why our system has survived as long as it has – because a simple majority cannot and should not control our most valued freedoms.

In case you don’t recall, the “nuclear option” employed by the Democrats in 2013 altered senate rules so that only a 51% majority (rather than a 60% majority) is needed to halt filibusters – the venerable tool once used by Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” to campaign for the underdog – for most political and judicial appointments. I guess this goes right along with Sen. Merkley’s thoughts, though, since it does in fact now provide a simple “majority rule” for many political appointments (including those by soon-to-be President Trump – imagine that?).

In any event, I disagree strongly with Sen. Merkley’s opinion that the smallest majority should entitle one to rule unobstructed. I’ll leave it at that.

Blame the Russians, part II

The DNC continues to blame Russia (and Trump) for their email leaks and election loss. However, they still refuse to acknowledge that were it not for their own unsavory activities there would have been nothing to leak of any significance.

In any event, you can’t blame the witness at your trial for your conviction, so long as they spoke the truth. That’s the case here; the truth was exposed, and the people acted accordingly. Would you rather have had the truth obfuscated, allowing such people to attain power? I thought not….

Hope?

Michelle Obama has suggested that “hope” can only emanate from a Democratic administration, based on an interview with Oprah Winfrey following the Trump election victory. In this interview she makes the following statement with respect to the “hope” theme of the Obama administration vs. the incoming Trump administration:

“We feel the difference now. See, now, we are feeling what not having hope feels like.”

I respectfully disagree with her assessment. Perhaps her hope for a continued expansion of the liberal agenda has been stymied, but she is not the only person nor hers the only agenda in these United States. Not everyone is dreading a Trump presidency; to many the incoming Trump administration carries hope for a return to a productive, powerful, self-sufficient America. Even many liberals, after witnessing his cabinet appointments and other transition activities, are showing signs of hope. To suggest that all hope is lost due to her party’s defeat is fear-mongering at best.

Now is truly a time for hope: hope that these petty displays of partisanship can be quelled; hope that we can find common ground; hope that we can consider our opponents views, rather than dismissing them as irrelevant.

A call for hope in troubling times is the sign of a leader, Mrs. Obama. A cry that all hope is lost is the sign of a sore loser.

The Russians are to blame…

…for the data leaks that cost Democrats the election. That’s what the Clinton team is implying as they try to convince electors to cast their vote for someone other than their specified candidate. However, it’s just another shell game; don’t fall for it.

What was exposed – not how –  cost Clinton the election. Blaming the Russians (even if they are found to be behind the leaks) is like blaming a confidential informant for your prison sentence. The important point to remember here is that there would have been nothing to expose had it not been for Clinton’s own actions.

Get over it, Madame Secretary.

Pizzagate and the “fake” news problem

In a story on NPR, Hillary Clinton is calling for action in the form of new laws to deal with the “fake” news problem:

“Bipartisan legislation is making its way through Congress […] It’s imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives.”

More laws? To protect ourselves from fake news? Really?

Do you remember when people actually considered the source of their news when determining its reliability? Or when reputation was paramount for success as a news reporter or anchorman? Are people really so stupid now, and reporters so untrustworthy, that we have to screen the news for people? And isn’t it laws such as those described by Clinton that have made the American public so damn stupid? I mean, if the government (or, more correctly, politicians) will think for you, what makes you think people will think for themselves?

I am much more concerned, though, over who will determine which news is “fake”. The power to make that determination could sway elections, and would be a very handy tool for silencing your opposition. Can you imagine how such a law might be used by the more nefarious elements of our political system?

In any event, be sure to tell your congressman that you are in fact a grown-up who can manage their own affairs and make their own decisions, thank you very much… and that more laws are not a solution for stupidity.

 

 

Us vs. them continues…

Pelosi commented after her re-election as the house minority leader:

She has winning brought “a special spring in my step” because it gives her the opportunity to “differentiate between us and the administration coming in January.”

I guess we can expect more of the same, evidenced by her “…differentiate between us and [them] …” comment. What will it take before “they” learn that this is not in the best interest of the country?

Transparency? We don’t need no stinkin’ transparency!

The FBI release of long-overdue FOIA files on the controversial Clinton pardon of Marc Rich has caused a stir. Marc Rich was under indictment for income tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and prohibited arms trade with Iran. He did not stand trial, instead fleeing to Switzerland to avoid prosecution. His ex-wife became a substantial contributor to Clinton causes, and lobbied for her ex-husband’s pardon. On his last day in office, Clinton granted their wish.

The Clinton campaign is obviously upset at having this information released, as reminding voters of this pardon will once again shed light onto the pay-for-play politics that the Clinton’s have embraced during their tenures in public office (someone should also add nepotism, and point out that Clinton pardoned his half-brother for drug charges as well). However, what is more telling is the statement the Clinton campaign made regarding this release:

“Absent a (Freedom of Information Act) deadline, this is odd,” Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted.

What I believe Fallon is saying with this statement is that a Clinton administration would not release FOIA files until they absolutely had to under the law, at the legal deadline. This is a continuation of the lack of transparency we have seen under the Obama administration, noted here, here, and here (compare to the Obama administration’s statements on transparency here).

Is America really ready for 4 more years of missing, altered, or denied information?