Monthly Archives: February 2019

Border Crises

Posted on by
Reply

There are two, and both of them are real.  One is the caravans, organized by three Central American nations’ activists explicitly to overwhelm our southern border and border enforcers with illegal alien wannabes and faux asylum seekers (false because they’ve already been offered asylum—and job opportunities, to boot—by Mexico).  Secreted among these seemingly innocuous ones (aside from their deliberate numbers) are drug smugglers, firearms smugglers, human traffickers, and outright thugs.

The other crisis, wholly artificially done, is the Progressive-Democrats’ efforts to block the installation of security measures to protect our borders and so our interior and our citizens.  That obstructionist and open-border policy is now exemplified by their lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration and associated reallocation of Federal funds to build walls in key sectors of that border.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent Trump from shifting billions of dollars from military construction to the border without explicit congressional approval. The suit also asks a court to declare Trump’s actions illegal, arguing that Trump showed a “flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution” by violating the Constitution’s Presentment and Appropriations Clauses, which govern federal spending.

Never mind that the Courts have no say in what constitutes a national emergency; that’s strictly an Executive Branch decision.  Never mind that the funds being shifted have already been appropriated and allocated to the relevant Department and Agency heads.  Never mind that the funds being reallocated were never earmarked by Congress within those facilities to specific purposes, as the vast majority of appropriated funds are—these few funds explicitly were left to those Department and Agency heads’ discretion regarding the things on which they would be spent.

And never mind, either, that the targets for the spending are directly related to the Department/Agency functions: military construction funds are going to be spent on construction.  Drug interdiction funds are going to be spent on drug interdiction—that being one of the purposes of the walls.  Funds for ATF not specifically allocated are going to be spent on interdicting trafficked firearms—that being another purpose of the walls.  Never mind that DHS funds not otherwise specifically allocated are going to be spent on interdicting human traffickers and violent criminals—that being another purpose of the walls.

And never mind that while there is considerable money appropriated and allocated for border and border crossing point detection surveillance technology, increased border personnel, increased numbers of immigration judges assigned to the border cases, and increased asylum seeker housing, these are useless without walls, just as walls are useless without those others.

This second border crisis is a wholly artificial crisis manufactured solely for the personal political gain of Progressive-Democrats and for the benefit of Party.

Full stop.

Progressive-Democrats and Integrity

Posted on by
Reply

In an interview on Bill Maher’s show, Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel had this to say about promises.  The comment was in the context of Emanuel and Maher nattering on about Trump, but it’s plainly made as a universal principle.

Emanuel…believes Trump is using a national emergency declaration, not to enhance border security, but to deliver on his signature campaign promise.
“You have a faux constitutional crisis to basically cover a real campaign crisis,” he said, “This is all about the campaign. Some pledge he made.”

Some pledge he made.  Because promises are made only to sway voters; they’re not actually meant to be kept.

That’s one view of integrity.

Argument by Non Sequitur

Posted on by
Reply

Kentucky’s State House of Representatives passed, by a large margin (69-20) a bill that would outlaw most abortions, contingent on the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade.

If passed by the State’s Senate (expected) and signed by the Governor (also expected), it’ll have legal problems, though.  Major ones will be what constitutes “overturning,” how an actual overturn would be discriminated from serious modification of Roe‘s ruling, and since Roe is medical technology oriented, a restatement of the threshold for viability.

Still, though, the arguments for and against the bill are instructive.

State Congressman James Tipton (R), speaking for the bill, put the matter starkly:

Not one of us, man or woman, has the moral authority to take the life of an unborn.  There is no other medical procedure that I know of that the goal is to intentionally take the life of an unborn child.

On the other hand, State Congresswoman Mary Lou Marzian (D) insisted that this sort of bill (indeed, any bill that limits abortion) constitutes an unacceptable intrusion into the private medical decisions of women.  But she was unable to answer—or chose to avoid—questions about the unborn baby’s right to life or about the medical decisions, private or otherwise, of those representing the unborn baby’s interests.

And these objections by Marzian to Kentucky’s bill are just cynically irrelevant:

If you want to go have a colonoscopy, should we get ourselves involved in that? If you want to take Viagra, should we get ourselves involved in that?

No life is in the wind in those procedures, though.  Only one life even is involved in these utterly non-lethal procedures.  Marzian, et al., know this.

Fines and Negotiations

Posted on by
Reply

The FTC and Facebook seem to agree that Facebook messed up with the way it handles user personal and private data; now they’re dickering over the fine to be assessed.

It [that fine, rumored to be in the multiple billions of dollars] would be the largest fine the FTC has ever imposed on a technology company, although the two have yet to settle on the exact number….

What is there to negotiate, though? Assess the fine, and if Facebook wants to negotiate argue the matter, let it do so in open court in an appeal of the fine.  That, unlike these kinds of “negotiations,” will occur in public, in front of customers and potential customers, with all that’s implied by the implications of pre-trial discovery results and public testimony.

Isn’t Zuckerberg all about transparency these days?

“Goosed” Paychecks

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Ron Wyden (D, OR), Finance Committee Ranking Member, had this bit:

It looks like the Trump Treasury Department spent 2018, an election year, goosing people’s paychecks by under-withholding, and it should have been obvious that the bill would come due eventually[.]

Never mind that the IRS also warned taxpayers—and their employers—to carefully check their existing withholding arrangements, especially in this period of large changes to the tax code.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) was just as disingenuous:

Many Americans depend on their tax refund to pay bills and make ends meet….

Never mind that large tax refunds, far from being a savings account (that pays even less interest than a bank savings account), is an interest free loan to the government.  Leave it to a Progressive-Democrat, with his constant demands for OPM, to insist that this interest free loan to Government of a citizen’s money is entirely appropriate.

Keep in mind, too, that these are the same politicians who will work to prevent the tax reform’s current personal income tax cuts from becoming permanent.  Because the money in those paychecks isn’t the citizen’s; it belongs to Government.

Goosed paychecks?  Those could be permanently increased paychecks—because of the so far lowered income tax rates—but for those Progressive-Democrats.