Category Archives: politics

Is the Department of Education Living on Borrowed Time?

Posted on by
Reply

Probably not but Congressman Thomas Massie (R, KY) has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to eliminate it.  It’s unlikely to pass, more’s the pity, but we can hope.  Massie’s bill is short and sweet, too, consisting of this in its entirety:

The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.

I’d add a second sentence, though: “All employees and associates of the Department of Education shall be returned to the private sector and not reassigned elsewhere in the Federal government.”  I’d also add a third sentence: “All rules and letters promulgated by the Department of Education shall be null and void.”  The third one may be unnecessary from a strictly legal standpoint, but I think it’s necessary for absolute clarity.

The Wall Street Journal, in the op-ed at the link, had a slightly different view:

Our view would be to put Representative Massie’s close-down bill on hold for at least four years, while the rest of us give Mrs DeVos a chance at making good on reforms that put the students at the front of the line.

I disagree. As long as it exists, the DoEd will be a Progressive-Democrat threat to our children.  More, the Federal government has no place in our education system; eliminate its presence in altogether—no matter the good intentions of an incumbent Secretary.

There’s not even a need for a rump Department to issu[e] block grants to states based on population and performance of education systems at state level, as one commenter at the op-ed suggested.  There should be no Department, rump or full-up, and there should be no Federal money transfers at all. Aside from those block “grants” never appearing without Federal strings, there’s no reason a New York tax payer should be paying into Texas’ education system, or a Californian paying into Illinois’, or….

Silencing Warren

Posted on by
1

A couple days ago, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) was disparaging a fellow Senator, Jeff Sessions (R, AL) who was being advised-and-consented regarding his nomination for Attorney General.  Senators objected, and then the Senate voted to require her to be silent for the remainder of that debate when she persisted in the disparagement.  Understand, too, that whatever we might think about the Senate’s rules against disparaging a colleague, the rules are quite clear and quite well known to all Senators and their staffs.

There are two things about the way the NLMSM is “reporting” on this as most of it lionizes Warren over her having been sent from the Senate podium for a few hours.  One is that the NLMSM is reporting only on the fact of the silencing, which occurred during her attempt to read portions of a 30-year-old letter from Coretta Scott King urging the Senate to deny Sessions’ nomination to a Federal judgeship. The NLMSM is choosing not to report on the behavior that preceded Warren’s attempt to read those excerpts that also included disparagement, behavior that included Warren’s calling Session “disgraceful” and “racist” and accusing him of pushing a “campaign of bigotry”—not even her citing someone else as possessing that opinion; those were her words.

The other is the NLMSM’s decision to not report another King family member‘s current view of Warren’s behavior.

Dr Alveda King, niece of Dr Martin Luther King Jr…said Senator Warren is using the King named to play the race card and stir up emotions.

“In that letter [Coretta Scott King] would be referring to some of [Senator Jeff Sessions’] comments,” King told the FOX Business Network’s Neil Cavuto. “However, she would agree today that he of course ended some [school segregation and] he worked to prosecute members of the KKK.”

King added: “It’s almost like a bait and switch, stir up the emotions, in the name of King—and my name is Alveda King…[and] play the race card, which she was attempting to do.”

Hmm….

Fake News?

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the lede from The Washington Post in a Thursday article accusing National Security Advisor Michael Flynn (USA Lt Gen, Ret) of discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador before President Donald Trump’s inauguration (and before Flynn’s installation as Advisor):

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed US sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former US officials said.

Notice that.  Current and former US officials—carefully unidentified by the Post persons.  There’s more [emphasis added, as it is in the subsequent quotes]:

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior US officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal….

And

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed….

And

the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from US intelligence and law enforcement agencies….

And

Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity….

And

All of those officials said Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact…making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

Shades of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) assurances to “Vladimir” of greater flexibility.  There’s still more from the Post:

“Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.

A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke.

And

The nature of Flynn’s pre-inauguration message to Kislyak triggered debate…according to officials familiar with that debate.

And

Current and former US officials said that assertion [of no sanctions discussion] was not true.

Then there’s this bit of misdirection by the Post:

The spokesman [Flynn’s spokesman] said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

The subject coming up isn’t the same as the subject being discussed.  The Post knows this.

Did Flynn overstep his bounds?  It’s impossible to tell from this article; there are no verifiable sources cited; although there are a dozen carefully anonymous—and so unverifiable—sources claimed.  As you read through the piece, though, you’ll notice that in the discussion of whether Flynn’s alleged-by-the-Post actions would be prosecutable, the newspaper did explicitly identify sources; it clearly had no problem naming names where that was convenient to it.

Common Ground

Posted on by
Reply

The Democratic Party—the party being run by Progressives, hence the Progressive-Democratic Party—met earlier in the week in a Party retreat to plot its way forward as the minority party in the Federal, and a majority of State, governments.  The agenda consisted of how to block White House and House Republican proposals.

Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D, MD) [at the retreat] pointed to the tally from the popular vote in the 2016 election to say that Democrats represent the “majority view” in America….

Never mind that that “majority” came solely from California and New York, two States that don’t come close to being representative of mainstream America.  Never mind, either, that majority of States whose voters have demonstrated—repeatedly—that the majority view, the mainstream view, is not close to the Progressive-Democratic Party view.

And

Actions like that [President Donald Trump’s EO imposing a moratorium on entry into the US from some Middle East countries], Ms Pelosi said, diminish hope of common ground with Democrats.

This is typical of the Progressive-Democrats’ arrogance.  The US must revolve around them. They have no need to seek out common ground with others, least of all those who disagree with them.

And this closer from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

As long as the president continues down this path, there is nothing Democrats can work with him in[.]

No, the Progressive-Democrats need to cooperate and work with the Republican majority.  That was, after all, the majority Progressive-Democrats’ mantra during six of the last eight years when they held the majority of one or both houses of Congress.

But working with, cooperating, only goes one way, apparently.  The mountain must come to Mohamed.

Common ground, indeed.

A Carbon Tax Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

No less a pair of lights than George Shultz and James Baker III have one regarding atmospheric carbon emissions.  They’re prefacing their case on their then-boss, President Ronald Reagan’s successful negotiation of the Montreal Protocol to rein in the failures of atmospheric CFCs that were destroying the ozone layer.  Not that the two have anything to do with each other, but it makes for good obfuscation.

Shultz and Baker have four “pillars” to their proposal:

First, creating a gradually increasing carbon tax. Second, returning the tax proceeds to the American people in the form of dividends. Third, establishing border carbon adjustments that protect American competitiveness and encourage other countries to follow suit. And fourth, rolling back government regulations once such a system is in place.

Their first pillar echoes ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) promise to let electricity generators use all the coal they wanted; Obama’s policies just would put them out of business.  No carbon emissions. Period.  Never mind that there’s very little need to reduce carbon emissions.  Atmospheric CO2 used to generate acid rain, but that pollution is long since reduced to the point of elimination.  Beyond that, the EPA’s pseudo-science “finding” notwithstanding, atmospheric CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant.  We eliminate that plant food at risk.

Return the tax proceeds to us as dividends?  That’s just wealth redistribution by government fiat.  Haven’t we had enough of Progressive redistribution failure already?  Not to mention the cynically internally illogical mechanism for the redistribution.

A $40-per-ton carbon tax would provide a family of four with roughly $2,000 in carbon dividends in the first year, an amount that could grow over time as the carbon tax rate increased.

How could the dividend grow—isn’t the tax supposed to reduce emissions significantly?

Border carbon adjustments?  Pit importers against exporters again.  That’s the outcome of the existing border adjustment tax being proposed in the House today.

Roll back the regulations once “such a system is in place?”  Really?  Can Shultz or Baker name two programs that have been rolled back once they’ve been enacted?  They’re not that naïve.

This is just more Progressive foolishness, now being spouted by two fine gentlemen who’re past their age of usefulness.