Tag Archives: ethics

Preventing Future Omnibus Bills

Posted on by
Reply

Chris Jacobs, Juniper Research Group founder and CEO, in his 23 December Wall Street Journal op-ed, offered a solution, but he made this error that’s fatal to his proposal.

But because the Senate parliamentarian allowed Democrats to create new slush funds for domestic spending with a simple majority via budget reconciliation in 2021, a future Republican Congress can do the same….

No. Two wrongs, as the saying goes, do not make a right. Republicans doing this because the other party does it is what Progressive-Democratic Party members do.

Aside from that, it’s simply a wrong thing to do, whether tit-for-tat or simply reconciliation. The better answer is to pass budgets and appropriations bills through truly regular order: get rid of reconciliation altogether and pass the money bills—or not—in the same way as other bills get passed or stopped.

There’s one other step required. One (ideally both) of the houses of Congress needs to enact a rule barring omnibus bills: only the single budget and the dozen separate appropriations bills can be considered.

If government shuts down as a result of money impass, there’s a big so what. The Obama Shutdown, the Schumer Shutdown, all the other shutdowns show how little government is missed.

This—Jacobs’ solution or mine—will remain pie in the sky, though, since we’re dealing with politicians and not persons representing their constituencies. That requires us, We the People, to get off our…couches…and fire those who don’t represent us once they get to DC and hire those who do. That will take two or three election cycles to drive the point home. Three to complete a cleansing of the Senate.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Show Me the Logs

Posted on by
Reply

One of the latest Twitter Files batch demonstrated that Old Twitter and the FBI colluded to suppress FBI-disparaged information and that the FBI paid Old Twitter’s costs in the doing to the tune of more than $3.4 million dollars. The Twitter File release carried, among other things, email exchanges between FBI worthies and then-Twitter functionaries talking about the exchanges and the payment for the quid pro quo.

Of course the FBI, in its best wide-eyed innocent Dondi impression, denies any such kind of interaction.

We are providing it [the input] so that they can take whatever action they deem appropriate under their terms of service to protect their platform and protect their customers, but we never direct or ask them to take action[.]

An example of the FBI’s “input:”

Hello Twitter contacts, FBI San Francisco is notifying you of the below accounts which may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service for any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy[.]

However, FBI officials insist

We did no [sic] request anything of the sort.
We focus on activities attributed to foreign actors, not on the content or narrative[.]

But for the non-requests, Old Twitter functionaries bragged about the payments.

Jim [then-Deputy General Counsel Baker], FYI, in 2019 SCALE instituted a reimbursement program for our legal process response from the FBI. Prior to the start of the program, Twitter chose not to collect under this statutory right of reimbursement for the time spent processing requests from the FBI. I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!

This, too, FBI officials…demurred from.

…[the payment was just] reasonable costs and expenses associated with their response to a legal process…for complying with legal requests, and a standard procedure.
…
We don’t just reimburse Twitter….

Well then, FBI Director Chris Wray. Show us the logs. Show us the notes taken by the FBI agents in their conversations with Twitter functionaries. Show us the accounting books.

Not Just DoJ

Posted on by
Reply

It has come to light that DoJ prosecutors convened a grand jury and got subpoenas with which to investigate then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R) and a number of Republican Committee staffers during Nunes’ Committee investigations into what are now known to be Progressive-Democratic Party collusion with DoJ to create a false narrative of Republican collusion with Russia.

“The FBI and DOJ spied on a presidential campaign, and when Congress began exposing what they were doing, they spied on us to find out what we knew and how we knew it,” Nunes said. “It’s an egregious abuse of power that the next Congress must investigate so these agencies can be held accountable and reformed.”
The subpoenas demanded a broad swath of records from Google, including “all customer and subscriber account information” for [then-Committee Senior Counsel Kash] Patel and the other staffer, “addresses (including mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, and e-mail addresses,” user names, “screen names,” “local and long distance telephone connection records,” and even the “means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number) and billing records.”

That’s bad enough, but I’m especially concerned about another, closely related matter. Retired FBI Assistant Director for Intelligence, Kevin Brock:

A federal grand jury subpoena for records can only be issued after some type of criminal investigation has been opened.  So whoever sought the subpoena will have to be prepared to articulate why they thought these staffers broke the law. And it better be a substantial violation, something more than just a media leak investigation for example, otherwise it will risk being perceived as a gross misuse of the grand jury process to intimidate or chill a congressional committee demanding pointed answers from DOJ.

The larger question in my view—especially if the subpoenas were issued on an allegation of a chump change crime—is who were the judges, if any, who played along and approved the grand jury subpoenas, what were their rationales for their approvals? Also, who were the prosecutors convening the grand jury? It’s possible they came from the DC US Attorney’s Office, but who in particular?

Priorities

Posted on by
1

Another fail by the Progressive-Democrat Mayor of New York City Eric Adams.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said with the expiration of Title 42, the Big Apple may be forced to cut public services to prioritize an expected influx of an additional 1,000 migrants arriving every week.

He said it explicitly:

Truth be told, if corrective measures are not taken soon, we may very well be forced to cut or curtail programs New Yorkers rely on, and the pathway to house thousands more is uncertain[.]

There’s this bit of context, too:

In the past several months, New York City has already received more than 31,000 asylum seekers….

That in a city with a population of 8.8 million residents, of whom, more than 350 thousand already receive public assistance. And Adams seriously thinks the 31 thousand are a serious drain on so large a city with a welfare system so broad.

Adams seriously thinks American citizens should take a back seat to a small collection of illegal aliens.

Why is this mayor prioritizing illegal aliens over his city’s American residents in meting out his city’s finite support resources? Well, he is a Progressive-Democratic Party politician….

Progressive-Democratic Party Welfare Cliff

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written about this on a few occasions. The New York Post has current data, and they’re even worse. Here’s a table illustrating the matter (as usual, right click|Open in New Tab to get a bigger image).

And some specific data:

  • In 24 states, unemployment benefits and ObamaCare subsidies for a family of four with no one working are the annualized equivalent of at least the national median household.
  •  In a dozen states, the value of unemployment benefits and Obama­Care subsidies exceeds the salary and benefits of the average teacher, construction worker, electrician, firefighter, truck driver, machinist or retail associate.
  •  In New Jersey, a family of four can receive benefits equal to an annualized earned income of $108,000 with no one working.
  •  In Connecticut and New Jersey, a family earning $300,000 a year can receive ObamaCare subsidies
  •  New Jersey is a state where a family can earn the equivalent of $100,000 a year if both parents are collecting unemployment benefits and ObamaCare subsidies for health care. In Connecticut the benefits can reach $80,000.

Party is bent on keeping average Americans trapped in Party’s welfare cage and dependent on Party largesse in return for votes.