Tag Archives: ethics

Don’t Destabilize the Alliance

Posted on by
2

That’s NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s request of Republican Presidential Primary candidate Donald Trump over Trump’s continued, bluntly phrased, pressure on NATO members to meet their spending commitment of 2% of GDP to NATO.

It isn’t Trump’s rhetoric that risks NATO destabilization, though. When Trump was President, he threatened US withdrawal from the alliance if the other member nations didn’t start meeting that commitment. At the time, only a handful aside from the US were meeting the commitment, and after his threat, a few more stepped up and met theirs. This after 50 years of “pretty please” had fallen on deaf freeloading ears.

Now, with renewed pressure from likely Republican Presidential candidate Trump, more are meeting their commitment. According to Stoltenberg, 18 of the 31 members are “on track” to meet their commitment (meaning they still haven’t, but now are saying the right words in their respective legislatures).

That leaves 13 members who are shirking their duty. That leaves 13 members who are betraying their fellow members by rendering themselves incapable of meeting their Article V commitment to those members in any concrete way. That leaves 13 members who are imposing risks on their fellow members by rendering themselves so plainly incapable of resisting an attack on themselves that they tacitly invite one, requiring their fellow members to spend their blood and their treasure to rescue them.

That leaves 13 members who are the ones risking destabilizing the NATO alliance.

Not All It Can Do

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Mayor Eric Adams’ New York City government has a new way to spy on American citizens resident in that city, or even just visiting.

New York City drivers buckle up because Big Brother (aka the MTA) is keeping a watchful eye on you by installing cameras along New York City streets to track you. But why? Well, it all boils down to money, of course. The MTA is rolling out a controversial $15 per day congestion fee for all drivers venturing south of 60th Street. They’ve even given this area of Manhattan a snazzy name: the toll congestion zone.

That’s its publicly stated—look, a squirrel—purpose.

Another purpose, one Adams and his city government don’t want to mention, is to track those drivers to see where they go; where they park and shut down, presumably getting out of their cars; what shops they go to, at least identifying the shops within walking distance; and how long they’re there.

Because inquiring Government minds want to know.

Denver Isn’t That Furious

Posted on by
Reply

Denver’s Progressive-Democrat Mayor Mike Johnson is upset that the Federal government didn’t solve his biggest civic problem. When the Senate voted down the Federal bill in question, he posted on Instagram,

Today is a day the residents of Denver should be heartbroken. And they should be furious because we know we have a humanitarian crisis in this city[.]

Aside: Caldwell and Hackman had this in their piece at the link:

This city of 713,000 people has absorbed nearly 40,000 migrants in a little over a year, more per capita than any other US city.

Two lies—and I use that term advisedly, given that Caldwell and Hackman are highly talented news writers for whom words are their stock in trade, and so they plainly know better—in that sentence. Denver has had an influx of not a single migrant. It has had an influx of 40,000 illegal aliens in that little over a year. Their second lie is their claim that those 40,000 illegals going into Denver are more than any other city, per capita. That number is what Eagle Pass, El Paso, McAllen, Laredo each get in a month’s or two months’ time.

Back to Johnson’s faux angst. [C]risis in this city.

  • Denver has spent more than $42 million in the past year to house and feed the new arrivals
  • Public schools have ballooned by more than 3,000 students, creating a budget shortfall of roughly $17.5 million
  • The city’s safety-net hospital has seen at least 9,000 migrant patients in the past year, costing at least $10 million in unreimbursed care

Ya ta-ta, ya ta-ta. These problems are of Johnson’s and his city government’s deliberate making. His city is a sanctuary city that happily invites illegal aliens in and thereby at least tacitly supports the Biden administration’s decision to not enforce our border. Johnson would have a beef, maybe, if he’d rescind Denver’s sanctuary city status and stop encouraging folks whose first move in coming into our country is to deliberately break our laws.

But he won’t do that. He’s happy, like the Left generally, to blame others for the problems he’s causing for his city.

On top of that, by maintaining his city as a sanctuary for illegal aliens, he is, along with all the other sanctuary jurisdictions, creating problems for the rest of us. And we’re supposed to sympathize with him.

Long Past its Use-By Date

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General Office has found problems in the VA’s process for vetting the contractors it hires. The IG’s audit findings include these (not an exhaustive list by me):

  • 47 of 50 contract files (94 percent) did not include position designation records that established the position investigative requirements for the contract
  • 34 of 50 contracts (68 percent) did not include contract language to communicate contractor vetting requirements to the contractor
  • 215 of the 286 contractor employees reviewed (about 75 percent) did not have evidence of completed fingerprint checks
  • 225 of the 286 contractor employees (about 79 percent) did not have evidence that a background investigation was completed by an investigative service provider

And this kicker [emphasis added]:

[T]he team’s review of a contract for unarmed security guards at the St. Cloud VA Medical Center in Minnesota determined that officials did not vet any of the 73 contractor employees, 38 of whom (about 52 percent) had criminal records. The criminal records included arrests and convictions ranging from petty misdemeanors to felonies such as disorderly conduct, domestic abuse, physical and sexual assault, financial card fraud, and terroristic threats. During the performance of the contract, VA police, St. Cloud officials, and the VA OIG were notified about improper behavior by the unvetted contractor employees, including stalking female VA and contractor employees, sexually harassing and assaulting other employees, getting into altercations at the medical center that required police intervention, and bragging to coworkers about being a gang member.

With that failure rate, does the VA actually have a vetting process, or is it just a few sheets of paper the department heads use for…decoration?

Further according to the IG’s audit, VA officials did not comply with executive orders, federal regulations, or VA’s policies for vetting contractor employees. Apparently, it’s not only that last regarding vetting, but VA officials are insubordinate and routinely ignore existing law and the orders of their boss, the President. Given these persons’ routine disregard of the other items, it’s not clear to me that the VA has any policies with which to not comply.

In any event, it’s long past time.

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

The full IG report can be read here.

I’ve Written It Before

Posted on by
Reply

It bears repeating, though.

The House Education and the Workforce Committee has been trying to get Harvard University to deliver documents relevant to Congress’ investigation into rampant antisemitism on campus. Harvard has been refusing to do so. From that, Committee Chair Virginia Foxx (R, NC) wrote a letter to Harvard’s Interim President Dr Alan Garber and to Harvard Corporation’s Senior Fellow Penny Pritzker. Foxx wrote in pertinent part:

Harvard’s responses have been grossly insufficient, and the limited and dilatory nature of its productions is obstructing the Committee’s efforts. If Harvard continues to fail to comply with the Committee’s requests in a timely manner, the Committee will proceed with compulsory process.

No. Harvard’s Garber and Pritzker know already that they’re being dilatory and insufficiently responsive.

Once again: don’t yap. Act. Issue the subpoena with a nearby deadline. Move to cut off Federal funding for the school if they do not comply.