Category Archives: politics

Feinstein’s Weapons Distortion

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) isn’t only dissembling in the course of her Progressive-Democratic Party’s shambles-making of the Judge Kavanaugh Supreme Court Justice confirmation process.  She’s dissembling regarding our right to keep and bear Arms, also.  Using the hoo-raw the Party created during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings (she’s the Ranking Democrat on that committee), she had this comment in the lead up to a question she had for Kavanaugh:

I’m talking about your statement on “common use.”  Assault weapons are not in common use.

There are two cynical distortions in that claim.  One is her “assault weapons” nonsense.  There are no assault weapons available to civilians in the United States.  Assault weapons are weapons capable of fully automatic fire (some of which can be possessed, but not borne, by collectors under very narrow circumstances) and heavy weapons—antitank weapons, crew-served fully automatic weapons, and the like.  Feinstein is carefully conflating the term “assault weapons” with semi-automatic rifles, which most assuredly are in common use in our nation, as she tries to emotionalize a completely rational matter with her scary term.

The other is her business about common use.  Here’s the 2nd Amendment in its entirety:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There’s nothing in there about common use.  The Supreme Court has ruled on the need for common use, but this flies in the face of that Amendment on two grounds: one is the Court’s manufactured standard—it’s law-making from its bench—of commonness of use.  The other flies in the face of history and of the environment in which We the People ratified our Amendment: a significant fraction of the cannons used by our side during our Revolutionary War were privately owned.  Plainly, given their expense in obtaining, maintaining, and operating, they were possessed only by the wealthy—they were not in “common use.”  The Court’s ruling simply wants reversal so as to bring the matter back in line with our Constitution.

That second point might be a bit obscure, but the first is blindingly obvious.  Even to a Progressive-Democrat.

Pompeo’s Correct Path

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had this to say in a Sunday interview about team play at State and in the other Cabinets of the Federal government.  Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Pompeo about The New York Times‘ manufactured story about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wearing a wire and moving to invoke the 25th Amendment:

I’m not going to comment on that in any way, other than to say this: I’ve been pretty clear since my beginning of service here in this administration, if you can’t be on the team, if you’re not supporting this mission, then maybe you ought to find something else to do.
I’ve told that to my senior colleagues, I’ve told it to junior folks at the CIA, and the State Department; we need everyone who’s engaged in helping achieve President Trump’s mission. And I hope that everyone in every agency: DOJ, FBI, State Department is on that mission.

It’s not the subordinate’s role to do as he wishes, or to countermand the boss’ instructions, or to run a shadow government, or to follow his bliss in his civil service—or Senate-confirmed—position.  The subordinate’s role is to give his best advice, and after the boss has made his decision, to carry it out to the best of his ability.  If the subordinate thinks—or feelz—he cannot, his only option is to resign.

Yewbetcha.

Another Witness Demurs

Posted on by
Reply

In an email to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford’s at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, said she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.
“Simply put, Ms Keyser does not know Mr [sic] Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr Ford,” lawyer Howard J Walsh III of Bethesda, MD, conveyed in an email to the committee that was obtained by Fox News [and by Politico].

Another witness identified by Dr Christine Blasey Ford, Patrick J Smyth, also has denied being at the alleged party, saying

…earlier this week that he has “no knowledge” of the party. He told the committee that he understands that “I have been identified by Dr Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as “PJ” who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post.

White House spokeswoman Kerri Kupec summed things up as they currently stand, as reported in a pool report:

One week ago, Dr Christine Ford claimed she was assaulted at a house party attended by four others. Since then, all four of these individuals have provided statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee denying any knowledge of the incident or even having attended such a party.

It’s clear to me that something traumatic happened to Ford all those decades ago, but it’s clear that Kavanaugh had nothing to do with it, whatever it was.

No wonder Ford’s lawyers are continuing to stall regarding her appearance before the Committee—even those lawyers’ “agreement” that Ford would appear this week is a sham; they’re still manufacturing disagreement over “details” of the appearance’s terms and conditions.

Free Markets for Health Care

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an illustration of why one is badly needed.  The Wall Street Journal‘s article is centered on health coverage plans, but the underlying problem is in health care provision and the monopolistic nature of both provision and coverage.

Last year, Cigna Corp and the New York hospital system Northwell Health discussed developing an insurance plan that would offer low-cost coverage by excluding some other health-care providers, according to people with knowledge of the matter. It never happened.
The problem was a separate contract between Cigna and NewYork-Presbyterian, the powerful hospital operator that is a Northwell rival. Cigna couldn’t find a way to work around restrictive language that blocked it from selling any plans that didn’t include NewYork-Presbyterian, according to the people.

And

Dominant hospital systems use an array of secret contract terms to protect their turf and block efforts to curb health-care costs. As part of these deals, hospitals can demand insurers include them in every plan and discourage use of less-expensive rivals. Other terms allow hospitals to mask prices from consumers, limit audits of claims, add extra fees and block efforts to exclude health-care providers based on quality or cost.

We’re on track to commit 20% of our GDP to health care costs, and the industries of health care provision and health care coverage operating outside a free market environment is the major driver of that expense.

The WSJ piece goes on at length in this vein.

If patients and our doctors were able to shop around and force hospitals, clinics, and coverage providers to compete for our business, we’d very quickly see better health care, better (actual) health insurance, and lower costs.  If our doctors had to compete for our business, we’d see just as quickly better care at lower cost.  And our doctors would need have no fear of costs—their fees—going too low: there’s a lot to be said for patient loyalty to a good doctor, both from a quality of care and continuity of that care perspective.

A Hearing

Posted on by
1

Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault ‘way back in their high school days, now doesn’t want to testify about her accusation—to back up her claim—in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  She wants an FBI investigation of the alleged crime—never mind that she knows, because her lawyers know, and they’ve surely briefed her, that such a thing is not a Federal crime, and so the FBI has no standing to investigate.

Her lawyers also are claiming that Ford is afraid to come to DC because of the alleged backlash she’s faced since Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) outed her.

[Her lawyers] also said their client had received death threats and had her email hacked, and criticized the timing of the hearing.

The police reports she filed regarding those death threats and that hack job are public records.  Let’s see those records.  If she didn’t file any complaints with the police, she plainly doesn’t take the alleged threats and hack seriously, and so there’s no reason for the Committee members, or any of us, to do so.

The hearing was scheduled too soon? This is nonsense, also.  She’s been rehashing these…memories…for at least 6 years whether by design or by their trauma. She’s ready to testify now—and she doesn’t even have to publicly; she’s been offered a closed-door hearing, and she’s been offered the opportunity to be deposed away from the madding crowds of DC, in a location of her choice.

Monday is the hearing, and she’s been invited to testify.  If Ford is a no-show, and if I were the Committee’s chairman (Senator Chuck Grassley (R, IA) is a much better man than I), I’d have an empty chair at her place at the table, and questions for Ford would be directed to the empty chair.