Tag Archives: government

Just the News Has a Question

Posted on by
Reply

The news outlet ran a poll over the weekend. The question was this:

How concerned are you that additional IRS funding through the Inflation Reduction Act will lead to more audits for typical taxpayers?

As of Sunday morning, the enormously unscientific poll—consisting solely of JtN readers—was running 96% Extremely concerned.

Keep in mind that the IRS has been targeting Conservatives and conservative organizations at least since early in the Obama administration (if not sooner; that’s just when it became exposed).

Keep in mind, too, that Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, since Obama’s first Presidential campaign, have characterized typical taxpayers as merely bitter Bible- and gun-clinging denizens of flyover country, as irredeemable and deplorable, as 15% of us being just no good.

How is this even a question?

Term Limits

Posted on by
2

There are a number of term limits proposals on offer regarding politicians.

Then, as James Sherk pointed out in his Monday Wall Street Journal op-ed,

Career employees fill almost all federal jobs. Only 4,000 of the 2.2 million federal employees are political appointees. Career federal employees consequently do almost all the work of government.

Here’s my term limits offer, this one regarding civil servants/career federal employees—and I’d apply it to Federal contract employees, also.

Term limit all of them—say 10 years—and after that term, they’d no longer be eligible for Federal employment in any guise whatsoever. That won’t actually hurt them: with the valuable experience of those 10 years of government employment under their belts, they’ll have no problem finding employment on the private economy.

One more limit: cap Federal civilian employment at one million, including individual contractors. Only the uniformed military should have no cap, but should remain sized to the threat faced.

Think, too, what that would do for us taxpayers, who are on the hook for those already enormous government pensions.

A limit on initial eligibility: a minimum of 10 years of employment in the private sector, unrelated to government work, in order to be eligible for Federal employment or contract work. Yes, that includes entry level secretaries/administrative assistants.

“Sufficient Evidence”

Posted on by
Reply

Regarding the FBI raid on former President Donald Trump’s (R) Mar-a-Lago home,

some legal experts echoed Pelosi, arguing there had to be sufficient evidence to secure a federal search warrant against a former president.

Sounds nice in theory. In practice, it’s not so true. One has only to look at the falsified “evidence” the FBI used to gin up some FISA warrants applications and con FISA judges into granting them.

It’s hard to believe “some legal experts” are so naïve. In fact, I don’t believe those folks, who are so awesomely intelligent, for whom words are their stock in trade, and who are steeped in the mechanics of our legal system, are naïve. Not at all.

There’s this, too, from Attorney Paul Calli:

A prosecutor “can write anything she wishes to convince the court to sign the warrant,” he explained, “and the judge reviewing it has to assume the prosecutor is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Sadly, that is not always the case, and thus it is really the prosecutor who secretly controls the basis on which a warrant is issued.”

Not entirely. When the judge discovers he cannot trust the agent or prosecutor who’s presenting the material in a warrant application, he doesn’t have to sign off on the warrant. An untrustworthy agent is incapable of demonstrating probable cause. Sadly, those FISA judges, even after openly saying they couldn’t trust the FBI agents, continued issuing their Star Chamber warrants.

Judges, including magistrate judges, can be just as complicit as the agents before them in issuing…unjustified…warrants.

Progressive-Democratic Party Newspeak Dictionary

Posted on by
Reply

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) has a new entry. While using her authority to line-item veto $21 million she says was allocated for “anti-choice” programs.

Anti-choice: what she vetoed was this:

$10 million for marketing programs about adoption, $2 million in tax credits for adoptive parents, $3 million for a “maternal navigator pilot program,” $1.5 million for pregnancy resource centers and $700,000 for a nonprofit pregnancy center.

She claims her veto was based on the pregnancy crisis centers spread disinformation and withhold other information. These are plainly bogus beefs.

Instead, Whitmer is claiming that giving women options regarding their pregnancies is anti-choice.

The Uniter Says…

Posted on by
Reply

…to Hell with bipartisanship. Again.

Last time, President Joe Biden (D) wanted an “exception” to the Senate’s filibuster rule so he could get passed the Progressive-Democratic Party’s voting “rights” legislation on strict party lines—no bipartisanship wanted.

This time, Biden wants an “exception” to the Senate’s filibuster rule so Party can codify Roe v Wade in the law.

If the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights, it should be we provide an exception for this[.]

The Senate’s filibuster rule forces compromise and bipartisanship—a measure of unity—in legislation by requiring at least 10 members of the minority party to agree to the legislation.

To Hell with bipartisanship, Biden says. Pass Party’s legislation. Unification means everyone does it Party’s way.