Category Archives: Republicans

Roy Moore: How Ethical Is It To Overturn The People’s Democratic Decision Via An Ethics Committee?

Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Government, Morality, Republicans, States' Rights

It isn’t.

By now you have to have noticed the ethical and moral corruption baked into the vaunted American system.

In the event Judge Roy Moore is elected in the Alabama special election by the people, The Establishment is waiting to unseat him and overturn the election via a Senate ethics investigation when he gets to Washington.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters last week that he expects Moore will face a Senate ethics probe if he wins.

“If he were to be elected I think he would immediately have an issue with the Ethics Committee, which they would take up,” McConnell said.
Young, the Moore strategist, cast the Senate election Tuesday in Alabama as a referendum on President Donald Trump.
“This is Donald Trump on trial in Alabama,” Young said on “This Week.” “If the people of Alabama vote for this liberal Democrat, Doug Jones, then they’re voting against the president who they put in office.”
“It’s ground zero for President Donald Trump,” Young added. “If they can beat him, they can beat his agenda, because Judge Moore stands with Donald Trump, and his agenda.”

It’s unethical for a politburo to overturn The People’s democratic decision via a far-removed ethics committee. They do it anyway.

Comments Off on Roy Moore: How Ethical Is It To Overturn The People’s Democratic Decision Via An Ethics Committee?

FBI Director’s Statements Calculated To Poke The Finger In POTUS’ Eye

Donald Trump, Ethics, Government, Republicans, The State

How can President Trump expect to carry out his agenda of draining the swamp and slaying swamp creatures—or simply fulfill his promises to Deplorables—when his appointees are hostile to his mission and contradict him at every turn?

President Trump attempted to shine a light, in the combative tradition of his 2016 campaign, on the crooked Federal Bureau of Investigation:

Despite the  abominable recent conduct of the FBI, Director Christopher Wray chose to shed darkness with these pat statements about the FBI “protecting the American people and upholding the rule of law in all 50 states and in about 80 countries around the world.” (Is that the FBI’s constitutional mandate? Crap.)

“Let me start by saying that it is for me the honor of a lifetime to be here representing the men and women of the FBI,” he said. “There is no finer institution than the FBI and no finer people than the men and women who work there and are its very beating heart.”
When asked about Trump’s tweets over the weekend criticizing the FBI, Wray told Rep. Jerry Nadler, “there is no shortage of opinions out there.”
“What I can tell you is that the FBI that I see is tens of thousands of agents and analysts and staff working their tails off to keep Americans safe from the next terrorist attack, gang violence, child predators, spies from Russia, China and North Korea, and Iran,” he responded. “The FBI that I see is tens of thousands of brave men and women who are working as hard as they can to keep people that they will never know safe from harm.”

Wray’s poking of the finger in POTUS’ eye is emblematic of why the Trump presidency is imperiled.

We Live & Labor Under An Illiberal Administrative State. Is It Constitutional?

Constitution, Federalism, Government, libertarianism, Republicans

Libertarians have a healthy contempt for government agencies and department, most of which are not mentioned—and were not intended—by the Constitution. Republicans are responsible for the creation of quite a number of wealth-consuming, freedoms-gobbling agencies. Belatedly, they’ve discovered just how deeply crooked and dangerous is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a fact Republicans were less inclined to admit under Genghis Bush.

So does the Constitution authorize all of the many law-making departments under which we labor? Over to Laurence M. Vance onThe Constitution versus the Executive-Branch Departments“:

It is apparent from reading Articles I and II of the Constitution that six of the current executive-branch departments have no constitutional justification whatsoever for their existence, four of them are apparently authorized by the Constitution, three of them might possibly be authorized by the Constitution, two of them should be combined with one of the other departments, and one is missing.

The Post Office Department that existed from 1792 until it became just the Postal Service in 1971 is clearly authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 7, where Congress is given the power “to establish Post Offices and post Roads.” It certainly makes more sense to have a Post Office Department than some of the other cabinet-level departments that are clearly unconstitutional.

The departments of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security should both be subsumed under the Department of Defense, since that is what they relate to. We had military veterans for 200 years before the Department of Veterans Affairs was created in 1989. There is no reason that legitimate functions of this department could not be handled within the Department of Defense, instead of a bloated federal bureaucracy that is second in size only to the Department of Defense itself.

The same is true of the Department of Homeland Security. In only 10 short years it has grown to become the third-largest federal department. What is the point of having a Homeland Security Department if we already have a Defense Department? Any legitimate functions of the Department of Homeland Security (and they would certainly not include FEMA or the TSA), could and should be part of the Department of Defense.

There are three executive-branch departments whose constitutionality is dubious at best.

The only possible constitutional justification for the Department of Commerce is two mentions in Article I of the Constitution of Congress regulating commerce (Section 8, Paragraph 3 and Section 9, Paragraph 6). But if a cabinet-level department is needed to do that, then what did the government do without a Department of Commerce until 1903? The truth is that the government had no need of a Commerce Department until it started regulating commerce in an unconstitutional way beginning with the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887.

The Department of Transportation can only barely justify its existence by appealing to the previously mentioned phrase in Article I of the Constitution giving Congress the power “to establish Post Offices and post Roads.” But that means that the Department of Transportation should be limited to just “post Roads,” not mass transit and aviation. And of course, establishing “post Roads” could be done under the auspices of a Post Office Department.

The Department of the Interior is mainly concerned with federal lands. It now includes agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Reclamation — the largest wholesaler of water in the country and the second-largest producer of hydroelectric power. But if ever we needed a Department of the Interior it was when the United States acquired the Northwest Territory (present-day Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota) after the Revolutionary War and purchased Louisiana from France (all or part of 15 current U.S. states).

And since there is no reason for the U.S. government to own more than 25 percent of all the land in the United States (with ownership exceeding 50 percent in some states), and no constitutional authority for the government to have anything to do with fish and wildlife or supplying water and power, it would be more constitutional to have one of the Department of the Interior’s agencies — the Bureau of Indian Affairs — elevated to cabinet-level status and most of the other functions of the department eliminated. But of course, the State Department could handle U.S. relations with the Indian tribes without having a separate bureau or department.

The Department of Defense can be justified by appealing to several paragraphs in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Paragraph 11 gives Congress the power “to declare War.” Paragraph 12 gives Congress the power “to raise and support Armies.” Paragraph 13 gives Congress power “to provide and maintain a Navy.” Paragraph 14 authorizes Congress “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Paragraphs 15 and 16 authorize Congress to call forth, organize, arm, and discipline the Militia. What cannot be justified by the Constitution is a Department of Offense, which is what the Defense Department has become. All nondefense spending (foreign wars, foreign bases, foreign occupations, foreign interventions) should be eliminated and the department shrunk in size.

The Department of Justice seems reasonable, since the federal crimes of counterfeiting, piracy, and treason are mentioned in the Constitution. However, given that Congress didn’t see the need for a Justice Department until 1870, that most federal crimes should just be state crimes, that the abuses of the FBI and federal prosecutors are well known, and that the Justice Department agencies of the DEA and the ATF shouldn’t even exist, the Justice Department should be scaled back considerably.

The Department of State seems to be the most logical department for a government to have. It was the first federal department established under the Constitution. Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution mentions making treaties with, and sending ambassadors to, other countries. The Department of State is one of the smallest executive-branch departments. However, it could be much smaller if U.S. foreign policy was not so interventionist.

The Department of the Treasury can also be justified by appealing to several paragraphs in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Paragraph 1 gives Congress the power “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Paragraph 2 authorizes the Congress “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” Paragraph 5 gives Congress the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” And then there is Section 9, Paragraph 7: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” What cannot be justified by the Constitution is Congress’s creating the Federal Reserve System. Any legitimate functions of the Fed should be handled by the Treasury Department. The main problem with the Treasury Department, of course, is that it includes the IRS. Abolish it and the Treasury Department would be much more acceptable.

The departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor cannot be justified in any way by the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to have anything to do with agriculture, education, energy, health, housing, or labor? Much of the welfare state is maintained by these departments. The Department of Agriculture is responsible for WIC, SNAP (food stamps), and farm subsidies. The Department of Health and Human Services handles Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Department of Housing and Urban Development facilitates wealth redistribution by providing various kinds of housing assistance.

All of that means that if the Constitution is going to be followed, of the 15 cabinet-level executive-branch departments, only 7 can be justified in some way by the Constitution, and there really need to be only 4, or 5 if the Department of the Post Office is restored.

The problem is a simple one: Few previous congressional candidates or current members of Congress from either party have any desire to follow the Constitution in every respect or even the majority of the time.

Republicans are the worst because they talk about the Constitution the most. They have talked about eliminating the Department of Education since the days of Ronald Reagan, but they have never done anything but raise its budget. They criticize welfare, but won’t touch the biggest welfare programs in the federal budget — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They condemn Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), but accept Bushcare (the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act).

The U.S. government is a monstrosity. From a libertarian perspective, the Constitution is an imperfect document. However, if the federal government actually followed its own Constitution, it would be a tremendous improvement over the bloated, expensive, intrusive, and authoritative government we have now.

Why The American Leaders Win, And The American People Lose

America, Donald Trump, Ethics, Family, Judaism & Jews, Politics, Republicans

Gen. John Kelly may have performed a most excellent maneuver. Perhaps his best, as a news headline blared: “White House Officials Discuss Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Departing By 2018.

This is terrific news for Deplorables, whether we want to admit it or not. The two New York liberals, a nepotistic addition to the administration, have been a disaster for the agenda which President Trump promised and for which we voted.

Alas, Deplorables, at least on social media, are blaming “dem Jews” for POTUS having largely abandoned his fundamental promise of America First (quit the denial). But Trump has clearly gone neoconservative to gain approval among “con-servatives,” which he’s getting galore. Deplorables aren’t being betrayed by Jews; but by Trump.

We Americans never hold leaders responsible for what they promise and what they fail to deliver. Instead, we retreat to our partisan corners and defend “our” guy (Bush/Trump), no matter what he does to us. He wins; we lose. ‘Tis the American way. The leaders win; the people lose. And everyone seems happy. Not I.

As I see it,  a leader is nothing but a hired hand who must deliver on the contract, or else.