Category Archives: rights

Friends, Enemies, and Party Discipline

Posted on by
Reply

The Obama administration, through its Eric Holder DoJ, has decided to prosecute Senator Robert Menendez (D, NJ) on various charges of misbehavior, charges which the administration and the NLMSM have been bruiting about for roughly three years. Why bring the charges now? Because we’re in the end game of the Obama “negotiations” with Iran over the latter’s nuclear weapons program, and the deal being talked about will codify Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons. Menendez is a powerful Democrat, and he’s been a vocal critic of Obama and his Iran “negotiations.”

The attack on Menendez already has borne fruit: he’s stepped down from his position as Ranking Member of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee. This committee will have a strong input on pending legislation that will give Congress an oversight say on that pending deal with Iran (or force Obama’s veto of oversight of him and his actions); the prosecution and Menendez’ withdrawal from the committee dilute Democrats’ participation in that legislation.

On the other hand (just across the street, as it were), the Obama administration, through its Eric Holder DoJ, has declined to prosecute the administration’s IRS’ Lois Lerner on the contempt of Congress charges brought by Congress. Lerner is a friend of the administration; she’s the one who headed up the IRS’ attacks on conservative political organizations, “lost” emails regarding those attacks, and then refused to cooperate with Congress’ investigation.

I often say at this point, and I say now: this is the level of integrity of the Democratic Party; remember this in 2016.

Some might say, though, that there are honest Democrats in the party. For instance, isn’t Menendez, a target of Party persecution [sic] one such? Of course, there may well be. But where is their integrity when they associate themselves with a fundamentally dishonest organization? What does their silence on this sort of thing say about them?

Those honest Democrats in the Party can show themselves in one of two ways. One is to end their shameful silence, even in the face of the present Chicago-style Party discipline. The other, more powerful, way (especially since, honest or not, they’re badly tainted by their association with this Party) would be to leave the Democratic Party and form their own political party to compete against the Republicans and Democrats from a platform built explicitly on integrity.

Certainly, third parties generally don’t do well in American elections. The Republican Party began as a third party, and the Bull Moose Party was a third party with a powerful impact on our national elections. However, since then third party attempts since have failed (Nader’s and Perrot’s attempts, while famous, were ephemeral). The difference between those failures and the prior successes, though, is not an evolved political environment. The difference is that the lately third party attempts did not have established politicians as members or in their leadership, and aside from an ability to self-fund, they didn’t have the finances.

The honest members of the Democratic Party, however, both are well-known and established politicians, and they have effective and stable fund-raising capacity. A New Democracy Party, formed of these honest, now ex-, Democrats would be in an excellent position immediately to compete on the local and State level, and in just a few election cycles (see the Republican Party) to compete on the national level.

It’s not at all an insurmountable problem. If those honest Democrats are willing fight Party discipline and to show themselves.

Remember this, too, in 2016.

VA Obstruction

Posted on by
Reply

…a program rolled out to give certain veterans the option of government-funded private care is experiencing serious bumps: according to reports, only 27,000 vets have taken advantage of the Choice Card program since it was launched in November.

Recall:

Technically, to be eligible to see a non-VA doctor, a veteran must be at least 40 miles away from the nearest VA hospital, or have waited at least 30 days for an appointment.

Which is bad enough, but it’s a clear rule, one that even bureaucrats can understand.

Air Force veteran Pat Baughman, for example, told Fox News he lives about 50 miles away from the nearest VA hospital in Bay Springs, MS—approximately a one-hour drive. But when Baughman called the Choice Card phone number last November, he was told to drive more than three hours away to a hospital in Natchez, MS.

“It didn’t make sense at all. I told them that’s longer than what I’m driving now. So they said they’d get back with me,” Baughman said, adding he received a call the next day and was told to drive to another location instead—two hours away.

And

One area of confusion is that according to the rules, a veteran must be 40 miles away from the nearest VA—”as the crow flies.”

Of course, the VA’s rules writers know that roads—especially rural ones—don’t follow straight paths.

And there’s Paul Walker, a veteran living in Minnesota and fighting cancer.

[H]e was turned down for private care for cancer treatment because there was a VA clinic within 20 miles of his home—but the closest VA hospital which offers the treatment he needs reportedly is more than 50 miles away.

“I tried using it and I got flatly turned down,” said Walker, who told the network that at the clinic, “all they do is dental work there and eye work and some basic kinds of different minor things…but I have cancer stage 4.”

And Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R, KS), with 63 counties and no VA hospital in his district:

I got an email by a veteran who drives 340 miles one way for cardiology.

These don’t appear to be isolated cases: that low number of signups, for instance. VA’s bureaucrats surely know these weaknesses in their rules and in their implementation of their rules; plainly these failures are the result of VA bureaucratic foot-dragging.

I’ve said it before: it’s time to disband the VA and convert what would have been its budget into vouchers for our veterans.

ATF and Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

They’re not capable of letting this go.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Thursday raised new concerns about surplus military ammo used in popular AR-15 rifles and pistols just days after pulling back on a proposal to ban the ammo because it could threaten police safety.

In a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, ATF Director B Todd Jones said all types of the 5.56 military-style ammo used by shooters pose a threat to police as more people buy the AR-15-style pistols.

So is the ammunition for any firearm a threat. So are knives. So are hammers.

Since the ATF doesn’t understand government’s role in our lives, or its own role in government, maybe it’s time ATF funding was reduced. A lot.

After all, recall that it was the ATF that sold guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Of Course They Did

Posted on by
Reply

Several unions filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of a recent Wisconsin law which bans mandatory union dues as a condition of employment.

Because they claim a higher right to the fruits of a man’s labor—his wages—than the man earning those wages has.

According to The Associated Press the unions are arguing that the law violates their constitutional rights because it requires unions to act on behalf of workers who are no longer required to pay union dues.

Of course, this is nonsense. Nothing in the law prevents unions and employers from negotiating contracts exclusively for union members. Nothing in the law requires employers and non-union members to use the unions’ contracts as their own. That employers and non-union members might find the shortcut handy is irrelevant. The employers and non-union members may very well negotiate better contracts than the unions did.

And, of course, the unions have no claim on non-union members’ wages, or anything else of theirs, from those non-members’ negotiations on their own behalf. Federal law, as well as Wisconsin’s law, makes this clear. James Sherk, The Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics:

Federal law [the National Labor Relations Act ] does not require a union to act as an Exclusive Representative. The choice of whether to be an Exclusive Representative or Member Only remains with the union.

The NAACP is Right on This

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a school district in Prince George’s County, MD (which works out to suburban DC), that’s looking to set up two public (not private) high schools for immigrants and second generation students who don’t speak English—and to teach in their old country language.

The NAACP is objecting, and they’re right on this one, albeit for some wrong reasons. Bob Ross, president of the Prince George’s County branch of the NAACP, had this:

It risks turning Prince George’s County into a segregated school system[.]

He said the setup is a violation of Brown v Board of Education, and he’s close. He’s also worried that this will divert resources from the existing school system, and he’s right here, too. This objection, though, isn’t that important; any effort to add schools will divert those resources.

Tehani Collazo, Senior Director of Casa’s Schools and Community Engagement section, disagreed, also with reason:

If we are saying all [English-language-learning] students must go to these schools, that’s one thing. But we are not.

Like the many that already exist across the country, the International Schools are schools of choice. They are built on an innovative and proven model that will help support the needs of our most struggling group of learners—English Language Learners.

They’re both missing the larger point, though, about American education in this context. The segregation argument is close, but it misses.   Brown was about forced segregation; this is voluntary.

On the other hand, “schools of choice” are appropriate for a lot of things, but not in this context. There can’t be any choice about being taught in English.

Immigrants need to assimilate into American culture; it’s our culture that has created the opportunities we have and that underlie our enormous success. Our culture isn’t learned by students and their families holding themselves apart from it, which is what happens when students go to American schools to learn in their own language instead of in English.

Language is thought, and English is the language of American culture. It’s entirely likely that English needs to be taught with greater emphasis in those of our public schools that have large fractions of their student populations who don’t speak a version of English natively. However, public funds should not be spent on public schools that will teach only in a foreign language. That’s not how American culture will be learned; that’s not how immigrants will assimilate.