Pete Buttigieg re-ignites an abortion discussion

Thursday, Mayor Pete Buttigieg said that determining when human life begins is "unknowable" therefore, abortion cannot be regulated well. The word for word quote is:

“For those who have a strong view about some of these almost unknowable questions around life, the best answer I can give, is that because we will never be able to settle those questions, in a consensus fashion,”

Interesting. While Buttigieg is dodging the issue, for political expediency, many people on both the right and left have very strong feelings both ways.

Some people on the hard right feel that as soon as a sperm and an egg get together, that is a person. I personally, as a medical professional and scientist, disagree. It is a plan for a person. I don't think a fertilized egg is a person any more than a blueprint is a building. Granted, it is a unique blueprint, but it is still a blueprint. The fertilized egg's only function is to eventually become a human being.

Some on the hard left say that a fully formed, completely healthy baby, minutes from being born, is not a human being, and can be killed just because the pregnancy is unwanted. It is hard to debate those people because they have apparently no knowledge of human physiology and are basically insane.

This brings us to the crux of the issue. If you do disagree with the idea that a fertilized egg is a person, and you agree that a healthy fetus minutes from birth is a person, then you have to come up with some determination of when "becoming a human being" occurs. That is the tough part.

Here is one attempt at a reasonable approach.

After years and years of struggling with this, as a physician, I have come to my own conclusion. You don't have to agree or disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own view. I just want my to have some rational basis for my own opinion.

Some analogous situations, to illustrate the points:

1. At one end of the spectrum: At Ford or General Motors, when they begin to build a vehicle, they start with a frame. They then add other parts until it becomes a vehicle. Is a frame (by itself) a car or truck? Is the assembly program in the factory computer a vehicle? Obviously not. To say yes would be the same as saying that a windshield wiper, or a tail light assembly, is a car. A car is only a car when it has all of the attributes of a car and/or has the potential to function as a car. It is a little more vague when when looking at something that used to be a car (a rusty hunk of metal that once was a car) but something which has never had the ability to function as a car probably is not a car. Again, this does not refer to a broken down car or a scrapped car. I am talking about a group of parts that has never been a functional car. That is not a car.

2. At the other end: If a car has been completely assembled, is completely functional, has never left the factory, and is sitting in the factory at the end of the assembly line, awaiting someone to drive it out of the factory onto the parking lot for shipment, how can anyone in their right mind argue that it is NOT a car? Does the location of a car determine whether it is, or is not, a car? That is why those people are insane and should just be ignored.

That leads back to the analogous question, at what point on the assembly line, does the car become a car?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but my feeling is that when the assembled vehicle can function as a car, it is a car. It may not have GPS or A/C yet but if it has an engine and can be driven, it is a car.

In the human example, to me, as soon as a fetus can function as a human being outside of the uterus, it is a person. If a fetus can fall out of the uterus and live a normal life, it is clearly a person.

There are varying scientific opinions of exactly when in pregnancy that is (likely somewhere in the 20-24 weeks gestational age area) but there is no question that, after that time, the fetus can function outside the uterus unless there is some genetic abnormality or gestational problem.

One thing that always gets lost in the debates is that abortion is a medical procedure. The question is not whether you are for or against it. The question is when it is an appropriate procedure to be performed on any given pregnant woman. Outside of nut cases, no one wants to kill viable fully formed babies and no one wants women to carry fetuses that will not survive to full term. Therefore, the debate should center around when the medical procedure is appropriately used, not if you are for or against it.

Here is a reasonable approach:

- allow termination of pregnancies of non-viable fetuses at any stage (the baby is never going to live). No woman should have to carry a fetus that will never live (anencephaly, Tay-Sachs, certain trisomies, etc.) to term. It is cruel and unreasonable to ask a pregnant woman to do that and dangerous to her health.

- allow termination of early stage pregnancies as a result of rape or incest (because of the psychological damage to the woman)

- allow termination of pregnancy at any stage if the pregnancy itself is a risk to the life of the mother. A woman should not be expected to have to die, rather than terminate a pregnancy

- do not allow termination of healthy, viable fetuses once they reach the age that they can survive outside of the uterus because that is a distinct human being. If the pregnancy is unwanted, give the child up for adoption.

Given a reasonable. approach, the real remaining debate is in the case of a healthy early stage fetus, not yet able to survive outside the uterus, as an elective procedure simply because the pregnant woman wants to terminate the pregnancy. This is the part that will fuel the most disagreement. If you think that the fetus is not yet a person, that seems to be the woman's choice. Once the fetus reaches viability outside the uterus, it is no longer a choice because the fetus is a person that can survive outside of the uterus and that is killing a human being.

People will, of course, disagree, but this seems like a reasonable position.

The Defecation Is Finally About To Hit The Ventilation

Attorney General William Barr has appointed a US Attorney to investigate the origins of the "Russia collusion" probe.

Did you just hear a number of sphincters tighten in Washington DC? You will, if you haven't. The crooks are going to be exposed, and some may end up going to jail.

The Clinton supporters/Trump haters overplayed their hands. Once the election was over, if they had laid low and dropped the whole false "Russia collusion" story, and particularly if Hillary Clinton had not kept using it as an excuse for her miscalculations during the campaign, they might have slipped it by.

But..... they didn't. They were so upset by the election, and wanted so badly to interfere with President Trump's agenda, that they doubled down on the fake story. In retrospect, maybe they thought that they had to stick with it, or at least hope and pray that Mueller found something, anything, to get them off the hook. After all, they all knew what they had done was wrong. They just never thought Trump would win and it was never going to come to light if Clinton had won. If Robert Mueller had found ANY evidence of collusion (which he didn't despite having 16 or 17 rabidly partisan Clinton supporters on his team), the crooks could have used excuses like "we thought it might be true", or "I was just following leads", etc. and that would have been their out.

However, by making it more and more public, and having either duped Sen. Warner, Rep. Schiff, Rep. Nadler, etc. or having them all lie about it (in fairness, Senator Warner pretty much stopped lying about it once the Senate finished their investigation but Schiff and Nadler are still staying with their stories), it was going to fall with a heavy thud in one direction or the other.

It is overwhelmingly important to note that that this is not the FBI Inspector General doing this. FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz will still issue his report on what happened at the FBI. But, this is US Attorney John Durham, a top Connecticut federal prosecutor who, as opposed to Michael Horowitz, is:

- NOT limited to the FBI only and can investigate anyone involved, including members of the intelligence community, media members, and civilian political opposition research producers

- DOES have subpoena power and can force witnesses to testify or invoke the Fifth Amendment

- CAN impanel a grand jury to develop criminal charges against anyone who has evidence of wrongdoing

- CAN prosecute witnesses for perjury or obstructing justice if they do not honestly answer questions.

This is a real prosecutor with the power of the US government at his disposal.

Because of the scope of this investigation, the source of this false collusion story WILL include:

- Christopher Steele and his false "dossier",

- the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee colluding with Russians and Ukrainians to generate false opposition research stories

- Fusion GPS and their role in creating the false story, including the role of Nellie Ohr, wife of Bruce Ohr of the Department of Justice. (As an aside, Bruce Ohr is looking better since it was revealed that he warned everyone that the dossier was bogus before the FISA warrants were requested.)

- CIA Director John Brennan leaking classified material to the media for political purposes,

- the various FBI and Department of Justice officials who presented false information as "verified" to the FISA court to obtain surveillance warrants against the Trump campaign,

- the FBI officials who planted covert operatives in the Trump campaign,

- the operatives that set up George Papadapolous with the false story about Russian information on Hillary Clinton

- the hacking of the Clinton email server and the classified material on it

- the unmasking of American citizens by Samantha Powers and others without justification (a crime)

- James Comey leaking classified material and attempting to influence the election outcome as FBI Director and perjuring himself in front of Congress

- James Clapper lying to Congress

- John Brennan lying to Congress

- Hillary Clinton deleting over 30,000 emails under subpoena (obstruction of justice, by definition, and a violation of the Federal Records Act)

- Hillary Clinton ordering the physical destruction of electronic devices so the contents could not be examined (obstruction of justice and, again, a violation of the Federal Records Act)

- former Attorney General Loretta Lynch meeting with the husband of the subject of an investigation while the investigation was still ongoing.

and on and on.......

If you thought the Mueller Report was something to anticipate....wait until the truth about all of this comes out.

This news is EXACTLY why the left has been trying to smear Attorney General Barr. They knew this was coming and they tried to get some shots in first. It won't work. Those darned facts will keeping showing up. You can't beat facts with innuendo.

Releasing the Mueller Report is a very bad idea.

After listening to Trey Gowdy today, in an interview, I have to change my mind about the Mueller Report being released. As a political junkie, I really wanted to see it. I thought releasing it was a good idea. Now, I think releasing it is a really bad idea. This has nothing to do with the current President.

First, it is illegal to release a good portion of it. Grand jury testimony and classified information cannot be released, by law. It doesn't matter how much anyone, even powerful politicians, want to see it. Additionally, if Reps. Schiff or Nadler leak the information, which they will if they get it, they should go to prison.

Gowdy, a former prosecutor, said that any time an investigation is performed, the investigating body gives the information to the prosecutors. The prosecutors then determine whether there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. In this country, every single person, no matter what, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, with evidence, in a court of law.

If no evidence, or insufficient evidence, is present to indict any individual for a crime, the investigation concludes and the person being investigated is not publicly smeared with the accusations that were not supported with enough evidence.

Think about that. The Mueller investigation has concluded and the investigation is not recommending any additional charges against anyone. So...... what would be the point of demanding its release? Simple....... to smear anyone included in the investigation publicly, including those not being charged with doing anything wrong. Doing this does not allow the accused to defend themselves or to present exonerating or exculpatory evidence, as would be done in a court room. It is fundamentally unfair to the accused.

Looking toward the future, this would set a terrible precedent. Any individual can be accused of any heinous crime by almost anyone. If the investigation concludes showing that it never occurred, using this precedent, the mere fact that the investigation occurred can be put in the public sphere. As Secretary Donovan once said, "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?" Just like newspaper retractions on page twenty after a phony headline on page one, there is no removing that stain entirely.

The implications of this in politics are enormous. Every candidate will have accusations thrown at them from opposition research and, despite being cleared, those accusations will be in the public arena. If the prosecutors conclude that there is no crime, there is absolutely no reason to nitpick over findings in the report. Nothing will change and the accused individuals lose their rights to defend themselves. No matter where you fall in the political spectrum, this should scare you.

Take any politician, at random... say, imaginary Animal House Senator Blutarski.... and he is accused of having sex with under-aged children. An investigation is completed and there is ZERO evidence that he ever did anything of the sort. Using this precedent, news reporters and opposition politicians can demand that the details of the investigation be made public and the media will report on "the investigation into Senator Blutarski having sex with kids" even though there isn't a shred of truth to it. The media will defend their partisan actions by saying, "We didn't accuse him. We are just reporting that there is an investigation." What will that do to Senator Blutarski's re-election hopes? He is smeared for life. That will then happen in EVERY campaign, on both sides.

Think that scenario is far-fetched? The FBI already did it to Senator Ted Stevens, in order to make him lose his re-election. That is one of the reasons the Affordable Health Care Act was passed. That is precisely why it was done. After the election was over and he barely lost, Stevens was exonerated, but the damage was done. Just a note, one of the people who was identified as committing prosecutorial misconduct in that case was Andrew Weissmann. Recognize that name? No? He was a prominent member of the Mueller investigation.

Therefore, as much as I really want to see that report, releasing it to the public, or to partisans in Congress, for that matter, is a very bad precedent to set.

As an aside, technically, this investigation was illegal to begin with. Both James Comey and Lisa Page have testified, under oath, that there was no evidence of a crime when the investigation began. Therefore, the appointment of the Special Counsel violated the very statute that created the office, because the statute specifically states that one is appointed to investigate a specified crime. There was no specified crime and thus there should have never legally been an appointment. The only crime that led to the appointment was committed by former FBI Director James Comey when he leaked classified information to the media. intentionally.

Paul Krugman, the ultimate partisan hack, calling others "partisan"

Dear Paul Krugman,

Please go back on your medications. Let me point out some of the sewage that you published in your article:

1) You blame the Republican Party for being totally "partisan" in the Judge Kavanaugh hearings. You omit to mention that EVERY Democrat on the committee, and almost every Democrat in the entire US Senate, had essentially announced opposition to the nominee before he was even NAMED, much less before the hearings occurred. Stop with the "We should be bi-partisan" stuff until it works both ways. You don't get your way because you whine the loudest.

2) You say that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed unless the Republicans develop "A very late case of conscience". So.... you are suggesting that Republicans should not vote for a nominee who embodies their judicial philosophy just to please liberals? What planet are you from?

3) You also say that Judge Kavanaugh is "displaying an evasiveness utterly at odds with the probity we used to expect of Supreme Court justices". When???? prior to the Robert Bork hearings? Back in 1875? Or.....do you mean like the last eight nominations that are all currently on the US Supreme Court? Since Judge Kavanaugh is doing EXACTLY the same thing that all eight did (NO one offers an opinion on anything since the Bork hearings), that must be what you mean. However, I don't recall you protesting when Justices Kagan, Breyer, or Sotomayor did the same in their hearings.

4) You also say that President Trump "eked out an Electoral College win only with aid from a hostile foreign power." Really??? So 304-227 represents "eked out"? Looks more like "butt kicked". And, after more than eighteen months of investigation, the only "collusion" with Russia has been found on the Democrat side in obtaining phony opposition research and likely criminal FISA court warrants. By the way, Andrew McCabe is now in front of a grand jury investigation. If I was Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bill Preistap, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Glenn Simpson, James Baker, etc., I would be sweating bullets. The shoe is about to drop.

5) With no evidence at all, you also say that the conservative justices on the US Supreme Court will "abuse their power at every level.". Based on what, Chicken Little?

6) You also write that Judge Kavanaugh spent time in the President Bush White House, which used enhanced interrogation techniques, when it has been shown that he had NOTHING to do with that program. All of the attorneys who did legal work on the program have said as much. If someone is taking out a loan in a bank, at the time the bank is robbed by completely unknown people, would you advocate arresting that person for bank robbery because the person was in the building when it happened?

Mr. Krugman, you are the very definition of a partisan hack, and have been for years. Your calling other people names has ZERO credibility. And, you should note that, just today, Democrat Senators Heitkamp and Manchin have already said that they will likely vote for Kavanaugh. It is fairly likely that Democrat Senators Donnelly, McCaskill, Neslon, and Testor end up voting for him, since he is getting confirmed anyway and they are in tough elections in red states. It is next to impossible to argue that someone who has been a Circuit Court of Appeals Judge for twelve years, has written 307 opinions, and has Judge Kavanaugh's stellar academic record and credentials is "not qualified" to be on the court just because he won't be a rubber stamp for your policies.

The Media Is Whining About Being Exposed

If you are following the news, a number of press outlets coordinated editorials about freedom of the press. In truth, they are all bashing the President. No surprise there. That is pretty much to be expected, given their political views. All of those synchronized editorials are advocating for "press freedom". Exactly what is it that they currently can't do?

- The media can produce stories that are proven to be false with virtually no repercussions for producing them.

- The media can advocate in the portions of their publications and shows that are supposed to be straight news without stating that they are giving opinion.

- The media can publish classified material without penalty where anyone else would be convicted and jailed for doing the same thing. Example: They are about to sentence a NSA contractor (Reality Winter) to at least five years in prison for leaking classified information. They are doing nothing to the media that published it.

- They can slander and demean people but unless intentional malice can be proven by the victim (which is next to impossible), there is no consequence for the media.

Exactly what are these restrictions that they are referencing? Is it being held to a standard that they don't like? Generically, when a media outlet (print or electronic) produces a "news" story that turns out to be false, and someone points out publicly that the story is false, is that restricting freedom of the press? Or....is that actually allowing more freedom, because both sides are having their say publicly?

It appears that, after many decades of being able to control the public agenda and get away with whatever they wanted to do (up to and including riling up the public enough to start a war), the media has gotten more scrutiny in recent times. Additionally, with the advent of the internet, the corporate media is no longer the only outlet for information. Granted, a large portion of information on the internet is not subject to editorial management and contains a lot of false material. That is certainly true and one has to be skeptical of everything that shows up, even more so with outlandish claims. However, many major real news stories have broken in those same venues.

Examples:

1) The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was revealed by an internet blogger posting a story about Newsweek not publishing the sexual misconduct story, even though it was huge news. As it turned out, they were not publishing it to protect President Clinton, for political reasons, which is a real news story unto itself.

2) The fact that Dan Rather was using unquestionably forged documents to smear former President George W. Bush during his re-election campaign was revealed by internet tech bloggers. It cost Rather his job, appropriately so.

3) The false story about the Democratic National Committee servers being hacked by Russia via the internet was disproved by internet tech bloggers.

So.........it seems that the media companies have lost control of their monopoly on public disbursement of information. They don't like it. They are whining about it. However, they need to get over it because things will never go back to the way they were before the internet became available. If anything, there is more freedom to publish now than at any time in history. The caveat is that the consumers of information have to be much more skeptical and have to process information better. Most don't do it so there are obviously a lot of misinformed people and social media gets filled with nonsensical memes and posts. It is up to all of us the cull through the nonsense and believe only that which can be verified. The mainstream media wants blind trust. However, they have clearly demonstrated that they don't deserve blind trust. That is what has them upset. The curtain has been pulled back and "Oz The Magnificent" has been shown to be what he actually is.

Are Confederate Veterans considered US military veterans? Yes they are.

A friend posted a meme on Facebook that said that Confederate Veterans are the same as other US military veterans and there were some commenters that disputed that, using Snopes.com as their reference. Since I have found Snopes to be agenda-driven at times, I decided to find out. Interestingly, when you use a search engine like Google, the first page consists of all these goofy opinion sites like blogs and Snopes. In fact, Snopes says it isn't true. Snopes is wrong, sort of. They are commenting on the wrong section. The controversy was over Public Law 85-425 passed in 1958, specifically section 410. I wanted to read the actual text of the law. I finally found it on the House of Representatives site. The first thing that is amazing is that the entire law is less than one page. Take that.... Affordable Healthcare Act.

So, to answer the question, as we say, In God We Trust..... all others bring real data. First of all, Section 410 is the wrong section to refer to for this discussion. So... here is the real deal.

Public Law 85-425 amended the Veterans Benefits Act of 1957 (Public Law 85-56). Most of the changes were changes in rates of pensions paid. However, this is the ACTUAL text of the law that added subsection (e) of Section 432 (not 410, the one people always mistakenly refer to).

"3) Section 432 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: e) For the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term “veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active, military or naval service” includes active service in such forces.”

That could NOT be clearer despite what any biased observer might think.

So..moving on....what is Section 410? Item 9 of the 85-425 law added a new Section 410 which made pensions equal for Confederate and US veterans. The ACTUAL text of that is this:

9) Immediately above Section 411, insert the following: “Confederate Forces Veterans” “Section 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the United States.”

I will also point out another mistake that Snopes is making. The web site describes the law as a "feel good" measure because there may not have been any Confederate veterans alive at the time of its passage. There may or may not have been any Union Veterans alive at the time, either. That doesn't matter. The law does have actual consequences, not the least of which is that unmarked graves of Confederate veterans can have government-funded tombstones placed, to honor them, by the Veterans Administration, That is true, to this day. Additionally, older veterans who had married markedly younger women still had their widows protected by pensions.

So, in summary, Confederate Veterans are, by law, considered the same as other US veterans and had equal benefits under the law. Don't believe it??? Don't rely on opinion sites. Read it yourself.

http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/85/425.pdf

August 18, 2018 Summary of the Mueller Investigation, to this point

For those who find it hard to keep up with it all, because they have other things to do, a summary, to this point:

1) James Wolfe, chief of security at the Senate Intelligence Committee, was sleeping with a 20-something New York Times reporter, Ali Watkins . He leaks the fact that minor Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was interviewed by the FBI to his girlfriend who is dumb enough to run it, along with the editors of the Times, implying that Page was working with the Russians. In truth, Page was approached by a Russian agent and fully cooperated with the FBI but, of course, this is nothing close to what was reported in the Times. Lots of people who dislike then-candidate Trump go nuts over the bogus story.

Wolfe has since been fired and Watkins is big trouble for apparently "sleeping her way to stories".

2) The Clinton Campaign hires Fusion GPS, through the Perkins Coie law firm, in order to hide their involvement, to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump. Fusion GPS hires, Nellie Ohr, the wife of then fourth-ranked person at the Department of Justice, Bruce Ohr, and former British spy Christopher Steele to come up with stuff to use against then-candidate Trump. Between Ohr and Steele, they come up with the infamous "dossier" which turns out to be unverified nonsense. Steele has testified as much under oath.

Ohr has been demoted twice. Steele is being sued for libel. Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS has recently been discovered to have perjured himself in front of Congress.

3) Both former CIA Director John Brennan and Senator John McCain shop the phony documents around to the FBI and news media. Most news outlets know the dossier is nonsense and will not publish it. Eventually, the web site Buzzfeed does, even though they know it is nonsense.

4) Former FBI Director James Comey starts an investigation based on the phony story and document. The investigation is prioritized over the Clinton investigation by the infamous FBI agent Peter Strzok. He, his lover Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe are all in on it. Counter intelligence head Bill Priestap and FBI General Counsel James Baker are in on it. They ask for a FISA warrant and lie by saying the evidence is "verified", which is absolutely untrue. One of the FISA requests is signed by current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is still participating in the process even though he is a potential witness or co-conspirator.

James Comey gets fired and freely admits to violating the law by intentionally leaking classified material to the press. Rosenstein won't recuse himself, even though he is up to his neck in it. BIll Priestap is gone from the FBI. Peter Strzok is fired. Lisa Page was fired. Andrew McCabe was fired three days before he could retire. Baker has been "reassigned" from the highest legal post in the FBI (That is FBI talk for fired from an important job).

5) Comey commits a felony (leaking classified material knowingly to a friend to give to the media) in order to assure that a Special Counsel is appointed. Since Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (there is that name again) appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel. However, the special counsel statute specifies that a special counsel is only appointed to investigate a crime. In the appointment documents, there is NO alleged crime mentioned. Additionally, "collusion" is NOT a crime under federal law. So..... what was he appointed to investigate?

6) The Special Counsel, after almost two years, has indicted some Russians for attempting to hack US elections. Every senior official who has testified has said that the election was IN NO WAY effected by their efforts. They have also indicted Rick Gates and Paul Manafort for some business dealings (for which Manafort had previously been cleared by the DOJ) which occurred six or seven years BEFORE the election and had nothing to do with the election or the President. They do not even look into Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta's brother, Tony Podesta, for doing the exact same thing. They also indicted Michael Flynn for mis-remembering a conversation that was not a crime. Yes, that is correct, they prosecuted him for lying about something that was never a crime. (Side note: This is not a new thing. You might remember that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald went after Scooter Libby for outing a clandestine agent, who everyone knew was not a clandestine agent, and it had already been revealed that Richard Armitage was the one who outed her. Made no difference to Fitzgerald, He just wanted to make a name for himself.)

Therefore, in summary, the entire Mueller investigation was initiated by bogus documents and criminal activity by law federal law enforcement officials. Almost all of those officials have been fired. It is hard to make the argument that they did nothing wrong. As a result of the Mueller investigation, with the exception of the inconsequential Russian hackers (who will never face justice in the US), Paul Manafort and Rick Gates (who made some shady financial deals many years ago that had nothing to do with the election), and Michael Flynn (for lying about something that was not a crime), ALL of the documented crimes have been committed by members of the FBI (Comey, Priestap, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker), a friend of the former Director of the FBI (the college professor who leaked classified material from Comey to the media), Department of Justice officials (Rosenstein and whoever signed the other FISA requests), a former CIA Director (Brennan), and the head of Fusion GPS (Simpson, perjury). There has been nothing revealed about the President, or anything to do with his campaign, trying to do something nefarious in the election. If there was, we would no by now. Rep. Adam Schiff couldn't keep a secret about his family if he thought they was political gain in it being leaked.

Democrats searching for the path

I read an interesting article today on the split forming in the Democrats. Because the Democrats only win national elections recently with coalition votes, they have to keep the coalitions together to capture enough votes to win in states that are widely varied in composition. Politically, that is not an easy thing to do. What plays well in very liberal states like California and Vermont may not play well in rust belt states and especially not well in the south. By the same token, more moderate or conservative policy trade-offs for moderate states, may not play well in the most liberal states. To keep the coalition together means walking a fine line between various splintered groups with their own agendas. As an aside, Angela Merkel is currently having exactly the same problem in Germany.

Before the 1930s, the black vote in the US was almost exclusively Republican because the Republicans had been against slavery, for civil rights, etc. and the Democrats opposed all of those ideas. The Democrats were the party of segregation and Jim Crow Laws. With the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, that changed. Black voters embraced the New Deal and have been fairly monolithic in support of Democrats since then. The record turnout for candidate Barrack Obama in 2008 and particularly in 2012 was expected, given his mixed-race lineage. The black turnout for the 2012 election was 66.6%, which is great. However, in 2016, the turnout was 59.6%, a seven point drop. It is not surprising that those voters were not as excited about Hillary Clinton. In fact, that type of drop should have been expected, given President Obama's unique position in history.

One of the biggest problems that the Democrats have now is the immigration debate. A poll by the Harvard-Harris survey, done recently, found that African-Americans are the racial group most opposed to unlimited immigration. Whereas 79 percent of whites want to prioritize legal immigrants based on what they can contribute to society, 85 percent of African-Americans hold that view. This is a potentially huge problem for Democrats as many Democrats, both in, and running for, office are openly advocating for open borders and less enforcement of immigration law. With the economy improving so much and unemployment being so low, the Democrats have to find something to run on, other than "We don't like the President". Democrats have to be able to count on that large percentage of the black vote to be able to win a national election, and many state-wide elections. If the Democrats put forth policies that 85% of that group do not like, and they have no other issue that will overwhelm that concern, they are likely to have those voters vote for a Republican, or just not vote at all, which amounts to the same thing in the end.

It is a hard path to walk in between the WAY left and the middle of the country. Rep. Joe Crowley would have been on the short list to become the next Speaker of the House of Representatives if he had held his seat in the primary in New York. Instead, he was beaten in the primary by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a declared socialist. It is going to be very hard to win in the middle of the country with an agenda like hers. Therefore, the Democrats are forced to spin that her winning was a good thing (in fact, they are all astounded and scared by that election), while trying, at the same time, not to have the middle of the country think that the party, as a whole, is not endorsing her views. That is a tough path to walk.

Things are getting a little sticky for the FBI in the Michael Flynn case.

Most people who do not follow this stuff closely will not be aware of this, but...... Judge Rudolph Contreras was overseeing the case of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. He recused himself about a week after a plea deal was made. That is HIGHLY unusual. As it turns out, Michael Flynn's appropriate conversions with his Russian counterparts (all incoming NSA Directors do it) were recorded by the NSA, using a FISA warrant, the legality of which has been severely questioned. So........guess who is a judge on the FISA court and a friend of good old disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok? Absolutely correct..... Judge Rudolph Contreras. It isn't public yet but it may be that the very judge who granted the warrant was presiding over the case that resulted. Why else would Judge Contreras recuse himself? He got busted.

When Judge Emmet Sullivan took over the case, things changed markedly. First, the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn have now been shown in official documents to state that they did not believe (not one of them) that Flynn had lied to them. Former FBI Director James Comey also said the same thing in open testimony in front of a Congressional committee. Flynn has said that he was forced to enter a guilty plea because the government was bankrupting him and his family. So... if the FBI, including the former Director, says that they did not think that Flynn had lied, why was he charged? This appears to be the Special Counsel's group telling Flynn, "Help us out or we will destroy you and your family, even though the FBI doesn't think you did anything wrong." Even though a plea had been entered, and, in theory, the case is over, Judge Sullivan made the FBI present all exculpatory material in the case.

Here is the part that most people won't remember...... Judge Emmet Sullivan is the same judge who was presiding over the late Senator Ted Stevens case when the FBI framed Stevens just before an election to get the last vote for Obamacare into the Senate. Stevens barely lost the Alaska US Senate election and then the guilty verdict was thrown out after the election for prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutors had held out evidence that showed that Stevens was not guilty. But, of course, by then, the election was over. It is a really shameful episode in the history of the FBI/US attorney offices. FBI agents and a US Attorney literally rigged an election for a US Senate seat for political reasons. That is why Judge Sullivan always makes exculpatory evidence be presented EVERY time he presides over any case. He was burned by government prosecutors once, in a high profile case, and is not going to let it happen again.

My guess is that even if the guilty plea is not vacated, Flynn will receive little to no sentence because of how suspicious the circumstances are in this case and that the prosecution may be on the verge of misconduct, again. The worst possible scenario for the Mueller team is for this case to actually go to trial because all of the misconduct by the prosecutors, including the justification for the original FISA warrant, would have to come out in the trial. It could also be very embarrassing for Judge Rudolph Contreras.

Mexico's new President and the effect on the US-Mexico border

As President Obama used to regularly say, "Elections have consequences". However, that does not just apply to elections in our country.

The newly-elected socialist President of Mexico, López Obrador, made a campaign proposal of not interfering with the drug cartels in northern Mexico, in order to save money for the Mexican government. If he follows through with his campaign promise, and he does that, he will be gifting the northern provinces of Mexico over to vicious gangsters. That area will become similar to the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan, which is essentially outside of the Pakistani government's control. In response, President Trump's administration will then be forced to take some sort of action. Since the Mexican government will not be helping, in any way, to stop it, the United States government cannot, nor should it, allow the free flow of unimpeded narcotics, and gang/cartel members, across the US-Mexico border. The response might be as simple as massively increasing the size and scope of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement service but, more likely, will require deploying the US military along the border or even using the US military to strike at the cartel facilities in Mexico. Those actions would be justified for national defense purposes to protect the United States. Mexico would protest but really couldn't do much about it. The Mexican military probably isn't as strong, or well armed, as the cartel's thug army. The United Nations' "anti-everything American" faction will howl but they are as effective as a screen door on a submarine.

Additionally, if the United States suspended remittances to Mexico from the US, Mexico's economy would crumble and Mexico would become a complete narco-state. At that point, any actions against the cartels would not only be taken, but would also produce virtually no protest. After all, it is hard to stand up for narcotics traffickers and look good.

Politically, if you are a Democrat, do you really want to go into the next elections supporting open borders when the new Mexican President is going to allow the drug cartels in northern Mexico free reign to make and export their products across the US-Mexico border? To do so would be to commit political suicide.

Trying The Old Roosevelt "Court-Stacking" Trick

The Los Angeles Times is floating an idea that was tried years ago and failed. Their idea is that, if Democrats win control of the government in 2020, they could expand the number of seats on the US Supreme Court and pack the new seats with liberals. Apparently, the Los Angeles Times does not own a history book or have anyone in the organization that went to history or civic class.

"President for Life" Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed doing this in 1937 with the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. That proposal was even rejected by Roosevelt's own Vice President, John Nance Garner. The bill was also held up by Senate Judiciary Committee by Democratic committee chair Henry F. Ashurst (from Roosevelt's own party) who was quoted as saying, ""No haste, no hurry, no waste, no worry—that is the motto of this committee." Even the people in his own party realized what a power grab it was and refused to go along with it.

Here is a better idea: Come up with some policies that actually result in winning elections. Since the Democrat Party lost about 1000 elected positions across the country during the Obama administration, you would think that they would, at the very least, be taking a look at why they lost all of those elections. One must remember that almost all of those losses occurred before President Trump ran for office. They were losing elections across the country even during the election the President Obama was re-elected. So, one must conclude that while President Obama was doing well personally in the vote, his party was getting their butts handed to them. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Donna Brazile, and Hillary Clinton seemed oblivious to everything that was happening to down-ballot Democrats across the nation. Tom Perez also seems to be, most of the time. If they continue to embrace the "California-New England" socialist portions of the party, they have little chance to win in the middle of the country or in the south. The current trend is that they are also losing the "rust belt" states.

This country has always been like a political pendulum. It usually cycles back and forth between leaning liberal and leaning conservative. That has been true throughout the country's history. However, just like a pendulum, the further you push in one direction, the further it swings the other way in response. Eisenhower followed Roosevelt. Kennedy followed Eisenhower. Nixon followed Johnson. Reagan followed Carter. President Obama pushed way far left. It is not surprising at all that a very conservative President followed him. If President Trump pushes hard right, the next President will likely be liberal. That is the way the country maintains its balance.

Moderates in both the Republican and Democrat parties are becoming a rarity. That is because it is hard to win in a primary as a moderate. Only the most active political voters tend to vote in primary elections. Those people tend to be the furthest edges, and most energized, of the party regulars. That is unfortunate because it seems that some moderation would do the country a lot of good now.

Brown Nosing and the Destruction of an Organization

Where is the line between enthusiasm and brownnosing? It is like the quality of a great painting. It is difficult to define but we all know it when we see it. A big part of the impression comes from what we think of the individual’s personality. People that are not well-liked are construed to have ulterior motives just because we don’t like them. It is fuel for the fire. But what is it that tips the balance? Is it one act or a series of smaller things?

Most people who develop the reputation, at least in my observational experience, set a pattern but it is usually one event that seals the deal. There is a common measure of what is expected in a co-worker. All jobs have some inherent unpleasant things which need to be done. That is the nature of work. People expect that. Most people want to get the job done and go home where the enjoyment is located. The brownnoser is different. An extra duty, particularly a “face time” event, where it is generally considered a pain to participate, finds the brownnoser overwhelmingly excited to be able to attend. That is one of the recognizable differentiating factors which identify the individual. Another identifying factor is the desire of those individuals to stop at any moment and tell anyone at great length how valuable the brownnoser’s efforts are and how the organization would be doomed without those efforts. Other co-workers contributions are recognized but one gets the sense of a grudging acceptance and feigned over-enthusiasm rather than real enthusiasm.

In order to make themselves part of the “in-crowd”, the brownnoser always speaks to others in a “just between us people in the know” attitude in order to give the impression that they are part of the inner circle. This usually involves dropping names of the powerful in the organization. This sucker-fish approach to riding on the coattails of power is an attempt to leverage the brownnoser into a position of more power in the organization. In Washington, DC, the saying is “The appearance of power is power”. That is because if someone thinks you are powerful, they will treat you with the proper deference, and therefore you are powerful because you get what you want. The brownnoser uses name-dropping to associate themselves with the powerful in order to appear to be part of that group.

The error in this approach with a smart boss is that the experienced intelligent boss also recognizes brown-nosing for what it is. Unfortunately, however, brownnosing often works. I remember an engineering job years ago where a peer that was universally regarded as a weak performer by his entire group of peers, with good reason, was rated number one in potential, by management, primarily on the basis of his organizing golf tournaments, which had nothing to do with his job. That is a recipe for poor morale and disgruntled employees. A number of excellent engineers left the organization because of that situation.

Communism was ultimately doomed to failure because it flew in the face of human nature. If there is no incentive to work harder, why would anyone do it? The brownnoser does the same thing to an organization. If the brownnoser succeeds preferentially, the other employees stop performing because they recognize their legitimate efforts are in vain. Their only defense is to begin brown-nosing as well and you end up with an organization consisting of two factions: the competing brownnosers and the disgruntled employees doing the minimum to maintain their jobs, similar to the ruling class and the masses in a Communist country. Unfortunately, most of us have been in an organization like that at some point. The only way to maintain your drive is to find another place to work. In fact, the most likely people to leave are the best performers because they are in the best position to get better jobs. You cannot work for long for people you don’t respect and those who unwittingly respond to the brownnoser are not respected. Therefore, to maintain the quality of an organization, managers must recognize the brownnoser and not allow their actions to reap favoritism. Only by avoiding that mistake will productivity and morale be sustained.

Task Force Uniform and the New Blue BDUs

Here is an old one that I wrote just after I was surveyed by the Navy about the new blue Battle Dress Uniform (BDU)

I have already addressed some of these issues but we were discussing them once again and I thought I would reorganize the thoughts, specifically about the new blue battle dress uniform (BDU). I have some questions for Task Force Uniform.

First: This uniform can only be worn on naval installations and aboard ship. Sailors cannot stop for gas, groceries or any other routine stop between work and home. If the uniform has to be worn only among other naval personnel, who are the people in a camouflage uniform hiding from? Aboard a ship or on a naval installation should be the safest environment in which naval personnel will ever be located. Why is it necessary to wear camouflage?

Second: Assuming everyone is wearing this camouflage uniform on board a ship. Does it make any sense at all to be wearing a blue camouflage uniform when a sailor falls overboard? It is hard enough to find someone in the ocean without the added disadvantage of having the person in the water in a purposely difficult to see uniform.

Third: In rapid evolutions (man overboard or general quarters), why come up with a uniform that takes longer to don than the current uniforms? Having worn BDUs in many deployments, they are a hassle to wear correctly with trousers bloused. People will argue that blousing isn’t necessary in a hurry. The counter argument is then why put in place a uniform which ever requires blousing on a ship?

Fourth: Another justification for the BDUs which has been offered is that it will make sailors feel more like “warriors”. This has to be the most condescending, insulting comment ever. Is anyone actually implying that Sailors in blue jeans and white T-shirts who fought throughout World War II were wimps? Are submarine Sailors in coveralls that perform so admirably upon submarines not warriors? It is a good thing that Task Force Uniform finally came up with a uniform which will make SeALs feel like warriors. This is the worst made up excuse for a uniform ever.

Fifth: If a Sailor deploys in a joint arena with the Army or the Marine Corps, will a Sailor be able to wear this new BDU uniform? Of course not, it is BLUE. If it makes you feel like a warrior, why is it inappropriate? The Sailor will wear either the Army colors or Marine Corps colors to blend in. So now we have a battle dress uniform which can only be worn in battles at sea. It isn’t used in land battles. That is ridiculous.

Sixth: The Army and the Air Force allow their members to stop for routine necessities in their BDU uniforms. Assuming that there is a legitimate reason for the uniform (which I haven’t found), why would Task Force Uniform agree to one that is so hideous that no one can be seen in public wearing it? If the Army and Air Force uniforms are acceptable, why not change to Navy versions of similar ones? Someone commented that the leadership wanted time to have people get used to wearing it. Once again, it is incredibly insulting to imply that experienced Sailors cannot figure out how to wear a new or changed uniform and follow instructions.

Task Force Uniform has really screwed the pooch on this one. Someone in authority needed to squash this thing. This is analogous to the ill-fated enlisted uniform of the mid 1970s which temporarily replaced the classic blue jumper uniform. One of two things will happen with this new blue uniform, either it will go away after a long enough trial period to allow the people who came up with it to save face (and the manufacturer to make a lot of money), or the policies will change and the uniform will have similar limitations to the Army and Air Force. In the mean time,

And...... I predicted even back then, it is being replaced with a newer, more sensible BDU uniform. It has gone the way of the Service khaki jacket, the PT uniform that could not be laundered on ships because it would melt, the black and khaki "Eisenhower" jackets, and the "chief-style" junior enlisted uniforms.

Why James Wolfe's criminal case is a big deal

For anyone not following closely, here is some further information on why the newly announced James Wolfe criminal charges are a BIG DEAL: This will destroy the entire house of cards that Robert Mueller is investigating. Apparently, the ENTIRE "Trump collusion" story was initially based on a story leaked by Wolfe (head of security at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, at the time) to reporter Ali Watkins (his girlfriend at the time), and subsequently published in the NY Times, that Carter Page had met with a Russian spy.

What the story did not say (purposely or not, not yet known) was that Page was, in fact, approached by a Russian operative posing as a banker and that the FBI had interviewed Page about the meeting to find out what the guy wanted, and to warn him. Page cooperated and then stayed away from the operative. Page was not acting in concert with the operative and was, in fact, a target. That is why there is no indication that Carter Page is, or ever was, in trouble for anything that is being investigated. The published story inferred that a Trump campaign advisor was purposely meeting with Russian spies, which is total nonsense. In retrospect, it appears that Wolfe may have duped Watkins (or she was in on it.......has not been ascertained, at this point). When Watkins was being interviewed on MSNBC about the story, she stated that Page had been completely open to her questions. That is because he really had nothing to hide.

The FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign were partially based on this false story and partially on opposition research from the Clinton campaign, manufactured by Fusion GPS and paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Campaign.

Therefore, the entire "Trump collusion" investigation was initiated on two fictitious stories from two anti-Trump sources that have no basis in truth. The anti-Trump people in the Obama Department of Justice and FBI were more than happy to run with the story because it served their political purposes. Additionally, they were so sure that Hillary Clinton would win the election that they never worried about getting caught doing the unethical, and likely illegal, things that they were doing.

As they say, elections have consequences. They are all now being busted for what they did and the truth continues to come out. The next shoe to drop may be an actual objective look at the felonies committed by Secretary Clinton and her aides concerning classified material. Andrew McCabe is already looking for immunity to turn in evidence on his former superiors. For Rep Schiff and Sen Warner, who kept pushing the story, you two were pushing the gas pedal on a vehicle without a steering wheel. It is not ending up where you wanted it to go.

The recent changes at the Consumer Financial Protection Board

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a political power grab which was pushed very hard by ultra-liberal Senator Elizabeth Warren. It was set up to advance liberal financial policies and was intentionally set up to not be accountable to just about anyone. That way, they could do whatever they wanted to do and no one could stop them.

However, a glitch in their plan occurred. When the prior head of the agency, Richard Cordray, left his position to run for Governor of Ohio, it left a vacancy, which all of the liberal supporters thought would automatically go to Assistant Director Leandra English, another staunch liberal policy person. Au contraire......... The President appoints the leadership of that organization, which wasn't a problem for them when President Obama was still in office. He is no longer in office. Instead of promoting English to the position, President Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney as the head of the bureau. That makes sense, since Mulvaney is in control of the White House portion of the federal budget negotiations and is one of the best-informed financial people in Washington, DC. In response, Leandra English was sending out emails and instructions to the agency using the title "acting director" even though she was not. It was an attempted coup. English even sued to get the job, which is sort of ridiculous. The courts have subsequently ruled, on two occasions, that the position is to be filled by the President, alone. At one point, the administration supported getting rid of the agency in its entirety. Instead, they decided to change it to make it useful.

The CFPB has a 25-member advisory board, which was also stockpiled with liberals by the Obama administration (to be expected and makes perfect sense because it was a liberal administration). Since the board members were trying to sabotage all of the changes that Mulvaney was putting in place at the bureau, today, the entire 25-member advisory board was fired because of their actions. Look for pieces of Senator Warren's head on your walls soon because it will surely explode.

Freedom of the Press... or Espionage?

The recent charges against the Senate Intelligence Committee security staffer for leaking to a New York Times reporter bring up some philosophical issues. Having a free press is certainly important to exposing malfeasance by government officials, and anyone else for that matter. If the government controls the press, there is no way for the average citizen to get any information except government propaganda. Some would say that the internet allows more exchange of information but a huge portion of the information available on the internet is fictitious and agenda-driven.

The one side is that the press needs to be free to expose corruption. On the other hand, the fact that you are a journalist is not a license to print or electronically publish anything that you want to publish. Recently, we have seen journalists publishing illegally-obtained classified material. That is quite a tight rope to walk. If the government is hiding nefarious activities by classifying things that should not be hidden, the journalist is performing a great public service. On the other hand, if a journalist publishes information that is not appropriate, intelligence operatives and foreign helpers get killed or weapons systems get compromised, endangering the nation.

In theory, journalists are supposed to be smart enough to decide which is which. We now know that most are not. That is why, in the past, their were vastly experienced editors at major newspapers and radio/television outlets that made those kinds of decisions, after very careful consideration.

The other presumption was always that the journalists had the best interests of the nation at heart. That is also no longer true. When classified material is published solely for the purposes of a political agenda, the journalists are no longer objective journalists, they are communication officers for a particular political group. One great historical example of this is when Newsweek spiked the Michael Isikoff story about President Clinton having an affair with a White House intern, solely for political reasons. It was only when The Drudge Report published a story about Newsweek killing the article that the whole story came out. Since the majority of the media outlets in the country are liberal-leaning, there have been a lot more "leaks" recently in an attempt to embarrass the current administration. That is to be expected since they disagree with the current policies.

A New York Times reporter had her phone records looked at to determine who was leaking the information. That is how they caught the Intelligence committee staffer. That is a mixed bag. On the one hand, we don't want the government to have free reign to examine everyone's phone records whenever they want. On the other hand, we want to catch people performing illegal activities, which potentially endanger people, for their own political agenda.

This is a tough issue to resolve no what which side you support. If everyone was smart and had the best of intentions, it wouldn't be an issue.

Performance Enhancing Drugs or Medicines?

The current performance enhancing drug scandal in major league baseball, which includes a number of players (most notably Alex Rodriguez) and the recent issue of Lance Armstrong Michael Rasmussen, Floyd Landis, and 20-30 other Tour de France riders, are sometimes not completely black and white issues, as they are usually portrayed in the media. Advances in medical technology are introducing new ethical questions as developments occur.

The prototypical very obvious case used in the media is of an athlete in any sport using medications, transfusions, erythropoetin, anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, etc. while participating in a sport and subsequently obtaining a competitive advantage in strength or cardiovascular endurance. Clearly, this is fundamentally unfair to the non-using participants.

However, the questions/answers get a little more murky when there is underlying disease or injury. An athlete with congenital anemia, asthma or hypogonadism may require the same medications that a non-athlete would be prescribed for their condition. In those cases, should they not be allowed to participate in athletics? It is an interesting question. Is exclusion fair to someone with a congenital disease beyond their control? Do we have a type of eugenics in sports? It is certainly simpler to take the “sucks to be you” approach. On the other hand, if athletes on legitimate prescriptions are allowed to compete, how do the governing bodies make sure there is no significant advantage? If they are allowed to participate, how far can the remedy go? Sometimes, ridiculous examples illustrate the problem. Should a person with a congenital bone deformity of the leg be allowed to ride a scooter in a track meet just so they can participate or do you set up separate categories (e.g., wheelchair marathons)? It is a very difficult problem to solve (e.g., Oscar Pistorius, Casey Martin). Clearly, there has to be some set of acceptable medications/guidelines. The governing bodies have been attempting to establish and refine those for years. Additionally, how does the governing body ensure that the medical treatment is legitimate? Based on some of the recent Olympic games in women’s gymnastics, every athlete on the Chinese national team will have certified medical conditions requiring medications and will be the proper age to compete. There would have to be medical panels to resolve diagnosis/medication disputes in each sport. Some have even suggested that it would be easiest to just let anyone use anything and set up the “BCS” in a given sport where all’s fair. That would get rid of the testing cost and anyone who used medications or supplements just has to live with the medical consequences. It would be on the NCAA model with the steroid and non-steroid divisions.

I find the dilemma in injuries even more interesting. If an athlete uses a medication or supplement while recovering from injury during the time they are not participating in their sport in order to return faster, is that cheating? For example, if someone uses human growth hormone to heal faster but never plays while using it and does not use it when they return, is that acceptable? A professional athlete depends on participating to make a living. Some would argue that as long as there was no residual advantageous effect after recovery, there is no problem. Should remedies used on the average patient recovering from a severe injury be denied to an athlete just because they are an athlete? If someone develops a “Dr. Bones McCoy” pill that regrows the anterior cruciate ligament of the knee in two weeks, should the athlete still be required to rehab for 7-9 months if it isn’t available to everyone else?

History shows that technology often runs ahead its acceptable use. One good thing about an Alex Rodriguez or Lance Armstrong is that the situation forces the issues to be addressed. Major League Baseball rode the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa wave of attendance and profit and held its head in the sand. It didn't take a scientist to detect steroid use in Mark McGwire, it only took eyes. While it is uncomfortable to expose these users/abusers, at least the playing field eventually becomes level… until the next breakthrough comes along.

Why the Government Shouldn't Run Anything Extra

Sometimes small examples point out huge issues.

Two local radio commentators were talking this morning on a Charleston, SC radio talk station about the issue of providing IPad2’s to children in a few local schools. One caller pointed out that it might be preferable to use the money for merit pay for better performing teachers. One of the hosts stated that “the money was allocated for capital improvement projects” and could not be used for pay. It seems like a small thing but it is not. It is typical of government at all levels and shows why citizens get so disgusted with the way government functions.

The money for the IPad2 computers is being distributed from a “pot of money” that was allocated for school improvement projects. Remember that this money was collected in taxes from citizens and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The legislature or school board hung a piñata of many millions of dollars without any specific projects or uses in mind and people are now swinging sticks and fighting over where to spend the money which falls out. Politicians like to allocate spending this way because: 1) they can talk about how they support education, 2) they don’t have to actually make any decisions; and 3) they don’t have to do any work, and 4) when the money gets used in crony deals or for dumb projects, they can claim that it was someone else’s fault. The very fact that the money is not allocated for specific projects leads to back room deals, lobbyists influencing spending, and political payoffs.

The IPad2's might be a great idea but one would think that if buying IPad2s for students IS a great idea, there would be a public hearing where the people proposing the idea would explain: 1) how it will help the students, 2) the cost of the proposed project versus the cost of traditional textbooks; 3) how software updates, security, and content is managed, 4) how maintenance and repairs are handled, and 5) how they impact of the program will be measured and assessed. Then, if the legislature or school board is convinced that the idea has merit, the funds are allocated to cover the program, and not a penny more. As the judge in My Cousin Vinny stated, (paraphrasing) “That is a well thought out, cogent argument”. But that is not what happens. The money is distributed by lobbyist influence, political pay offs and to the "network of the connected".

Another result of allocating money in the government manner is that every September is Christmas for the government. Financial managers in the government know that any money allocated and not spent will be withheld the next year. Therefore, every September there is a buying spree for every government agency to ensure that the funding is spent, whether the purchases are needed or not. The money falls downhill. The big agency “dumps” money down to smaller organizations that have to spend the money or pass it down even further. If the government was surprised one year and was only allowed to spend in September at the average rate of the previous eleven months, billions of dollars would be saved and the waste exposed (which is why that will never happen).

One of the arguments for the recent health care bill was that funding could be obtained from waste recovery. Waste is built into the government spending and anyone who works in government knows that waste recovery is a false promise. Until the government leaders who spend the money are held responsible for the way that they allocate the money and do their business, waste will continue and cronyism will continue.

Anyone who thinks the government runs anything more efficiently than private industry is deluded, at best. There will always be someone who pipes up with, "What about the military?" Anyone who says that has obviously never been in the US military.

A Hypothetical Conversation with President Obama

Mister President, thank you for taking the time to meet today.

POTUS: You're welcome

Today, your approval ratings sit at near lows and the economy is still in the doldrums. Do you see things turning around soon?

POTUS: I still believe that the stimulus package saved us from catastrophe and will help the economy gain strength.

Mr. President, I would argue the stimulus package hurt you in two big ways: your poor approval and the birth of the Tea Party movement.

POTUS: How can you make that argument? They are not related.

I believe they are. First, One of the biggest criticisms of you when you were a candidate was that you had little executive experience. In all honesty, even Gov. Palin had a lot more experience than you in executive positions and your campaign operatives hammered her endlessly about being inexperienced. But the stimulus package is where the narrative was reinforced: I believe that when your economists advised you that if you didn't put $750 billion into the economy it would tank, so you tried to do it in good faith. However, you made a rookie mistake; you trusted Speaker Pelosi.

POTUS: Rep. Pelosi is a strong and loyal public servant.

I know you believe that but she went to Rep. David Obey, Chairman of Appropriations, and said "spend $750 billion". He, in turn, went around to every Congressman he could find and asked them what pet projects they wanted to spend money on. That is how you ended up defending $789 billion of crap.

POTUS: I wouldn't put it that way. A lot of those projects were very worthwhile.

Maybe so, but you ended up defending stuff that even you had to turn your nose up at. An experienced executive would have crafted a bill with projects that had to be paid for anyway: bridges, schools, roads, the electrical grid, etc. and sent that bill to Congress. All that would have happened was you'd be moving necessary projects forward. You got boxed in and embarrassed by your Democratic Congress despite good intentions.

POTUS: That may be how you see it but how does that have anything to do with the Tea Party?

There was a lot of unrest with the government during the last years of the Bush administration with rising spending and the wars. You ran on a promise to change things. Many people who knew that you were no where near as qualified as Senator McCain voted for you because of the ideal you represented: no more status quo, transparency, change, etc. When your administration started doing things without transparency, sneaking through unpopular bills by bending rules, spending even more than the Bush Administration, doing almost everything for the benefit of labor unions, the people had finally had enough. Because you had represented yourself as different, and turned to be a larger version of the same old politicians, there was a lot more disappointment with your administration than there would usually be. Because the Republicans were big spenders and Democrats turned out to be even bigger spenders, along comes the Tea Party.

POTUS: You seem to forget that I ran on green jobs, ending the Iraq War, closing Guantanamo Bay, and bringing a different tone to Washington.

Mr. President, the Iraq War was won when you came into office. That was a done deal. If anything, the Democratic Congress made the tone in Washington much worse. Republicans weren't even able to present ideas on any of the major bills. You know you can't close Guantanamo Bay and send those prisoners back into the fight. And until technology improves, green energy will destroy our economy. Besides, this winter is making Al Gore look a little foolish.

POTUS: Climate change is an important issue. We need to be the leader in this regard.

True, but you and everyone else knows that until India and China sign on, anything we do here will not only be futile, it will give those two countries a competitive advantage. Beside, real data contradicts the UN's computer models about the effect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere.

Moving on, the biggest controversy in Washington these days is the health care bill. Admit it, you could not have possibly known all the junk that was in that bill and it certainly wasn't written in a few weeks.

POTUS: There are some things in the bill that need to be adjusted, like the 1099 requirement for small business. But a lot of other parts of the bill are monumental achievements, like the pre-existing conditions section.

Since you bring that up, let's take two scenarios: 1) A 55 year old man has been working for the same company since he was 18. He has always paid his taxes, never been in trouble, a stellar citizen. He has hypertension and mild diabetes. His company goes out of business. He can't get insurance at his new job. Clearly that is wrong.

POTUS: That is exactly the person we are trying to help. This bill prevents that from happening.

Fair enough. Scenario 2: We have a 32 year old male. He has never worked a day in his life. He is perfectly healthy. He chooses not to work. He never pays taxes. He even sells a little bit of crack to school children to get by. One day, he has a pain and goes to his emergency room for some free care. He finds out he needs a major operation and long term postoperative care. He has a pre-existing condition. What obligation do the people who have been paying into the system their whole lives have provide him insurance?

POTUS: That is a little extreme for an example.

No. They are both pre-existing conditions. Wouldn't it have been better to allow all people to purchase across state lines and to own their own policy so they can carry it from job to job?

POTUS: I have said anyone with good ideas can bring them to me.

Those ideas were brought to you before the bill was passed and the Republicans were not allowed to offer amendments. That is why people are fed up.

POTUS: I agree there are adjustments that have to be made.

Moving on, we have massive debt now. You offered to freeze spending. But that was after you raised spending for most domestic programs by about 24%. That is like curing binge drinking by not drinking more than you did when you were drinking the most alcohol.

POTUS: We are trying to reduce the rate of growth.

That doesn't make sense. You don't reduce the first derivative. You have to make the amount go down, not how fast it gets bigger.

One last question: You work closely with Sen. Reid. How can you possibly put up with that guy?

POTUS: Senator Reid is a great public servant who worked hard to get many of my agenda items passed.

True, but it is one thing when a politician lies to you. It is another when he is lying, you know he is lying, he knows that you know that he is lying, but still lies to you anyway.

POTUS: Lying about what?

You know as well as I do that the set of suppositions and nonsense that was given to the Congressional Budget Office about the health care bill, such as ten years of taxes to offset six years of benefits and a separate bill to fix reimbursement for physicians in Medicare, was garbage just to make the numbers turn out in your favor. Sen. Reid always talks about how the bill will bring down costs when he knows it isn't true.

POTUS: He and I believe that it is true.

That just about says it all. Thank you Mister President.

Does the First Amendment Mean What It Says?

The first amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I was considering the arguments about separation of church and state the other day and thought it might be helpful to review what the first amendment actually said. I know this may seem a little simplistic but the amendment specifically prohibits Congress from passing a law establishing an official religion for the country or a law that prevents people from practicing their religion preference. The amendment specifically does not mention the executive or judicial branches, or anyone else, for that matter. Of course, one must remember that the founders would not recognize the current federal government. The original theory was that the Congress would basically run the country in times of peace but the President had large powers for emergency situations and war because the Congress worked too deliberately in a crisis situation. George Washington felt he would only veto a bill if he believed that the law violated the Constitution. Today, Congress sits on its hands and even is currently trying to pass laws ceding power to the executive branch. I find that pretty interesting since when George W. Bush was President, there was much gnashing of teeth about too much executive power from Democrats but with Barrack Obama as President, Democrats are giving unilateral power to the Treasury Department, for example.

The founding fathers were acutely aware of the history of Europe and the Middle East where untold millions had died as a result of religious wars over the centuries. In Britain alone, the conflict between the Catholic Church and the Protestants had caused war, government upheaval and tension for centuries. Therefore, in order to avoid those types of conflicts, no official religion for the country would ever be established. Some modern advocates try to make it sound like the founders were against religion. It only takes even a cursory reading of any of the writings of most of the founders to trash that view. The vast majority of the founders were devoted to their religion and used it to guide their actions and values routinely. To claim otherwise is fiction.

People in line with groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have taken the position that anything government in the same area code as anything religious is a violation of the Constitution, specifically the first amendment. But is it? Since the federal government intrudes into almost every area of citizen’s lives, does that mean that religion has no place in the modern United States? Or, does the Constitution mean what it says?

Let’s look at an example for the sake of argument:

There has been a monument to memorialize Americans who lost their lives in military service in the Mojave National Preserve since 1934. It is a cross no more than about eight feet tall. It can be seen from a few hundred yards. A case recently went to the United States Supreme Court to decide whether it was allowed on public lands. I suppose it is redundant to point out that no one seemed to mind for about sixty-six years. Looking back at the first amendment, did Congress have anything to do with this monument? Did they make a law establishing it? The memorial was originally placed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars which is not Congress, and, as an organization, is a heck of a lot more respected and popular. So, since 1) Congress was not involved, and 2) no law was made, and 3) no prohibition on the free exercise of religion was established, how does the mere presence of the memorial violate the first amendment? None of the specific prohibitions listed in the first amendment apply. The case is, of course, a lot more complicated than it appears. There is question of standing for the plaintiff, there is a question about land transfer and a number of other issues including that the government refused to allow a Buddhist monument in the same area in 1999, stating they were going to remove the cross. Notwithstanding all the complexities, the plaintiff in the suit argues that the mere presence of any religious symbol on government property establishes an official religion for the nation.

Using that same premise, a Star of David or a cross on a headstone in a government cemetery is an endorsement of religion. If the mere presence of a religious symbol establishes religion, then there certainly are a number of established religions in the country.

It comes down to the same argument all over again: Can judges interpret the law any way they want, or does the Constitution mean what is written? If the liberal former view is true, they Bill of Rights would have been a lot easier to write as one amendment, “Do whatever you want to” and courts could serve up the Law du Jour each day of the week.