Tag Archives: ethics

In Which Adam Schiff Demurs

Posted on by
Reply

Last Thursday, President Donald Trump authorized Attorney General William Barr to declassify any documents concerning surveillance of Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign.  Trump also instructed the Intelligence agencies and “the heads of each department or agency that includes an element of the intelligence community” to cooperate with Barr in that declassification.  This exposure of underlying data is something Republicans have been calling for since that surveillance itself was exposed.

Congressman Adam Schiff (D, CA) is up in arms over this move.  The

chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, blasted the move as an attempt to “weaponize law enforcement and classified information.”

Because exposing inconvenient truths is weaponizing.

Of course, this is the same Adam Schiff who said over a year ago that he had lots of plain, clear evidence of criminal activity done by Trump.  And refused to provide any of it.

So much for Progressive-Democrat calls for transparency.

An Out of Control Supreme Court Justice

Posted on by
Reply

I received this email from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last Thursday [emphasis added].

E —
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a powerful message about reproductive rights that every grassroots Democrat needs to hear:
“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”
E, if you agree with Justice Ginsburg that women should be able to make their own health care choices, add your name now >>
Republican legislatures nationwide have spent the last few weeks passing extreme abortion laws, with the goal of getting the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.
But people are speaking out, fighting back, and holding rallies across the country with a clear message for Republicans: We won’t tolerate these attacks on women’s reproductive rights. As Justice Ginsburg says, women should be able to make their own decisions about their reproductive care.
Add your name now to stand with Ruth Bader Ginsburg if you agree that women should be able to make their own health care choices:
http://www.dscc.org/Stand-With-RBG
Thanks,
Team DSCC

The emphasized quote is what then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg said at her confirmation hearing.

There are a couple of things terribly wrong here. One is the plain pre-judging Ginsburg revealed then, her decision to announce what her ruling would be on any future abortion-related case that might come before the Court.  (Never mind that her pre-determined opinion entirely writes off the human right of a baby to its well-being and dignity, its right to live.)

But the other, even worse, if that’s possible, thing is a sitting Supreme Court Justice actively participating in politics—not in her personal role as citizen, but in her judicial role as Supreme Court Justice (of course, Ginsburg has a history of this with her disparaging statements about then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump).

Ginsburg has permitted a political campaign facility to use her statement in today’s political environment without that quote being noted as from that confirmation hearing.  Ginsburg has permitted the DSCC to imply that this is a current statement and that a sitting Justice has taken sides in a political contest.

That behavior is despicable.

Charging Assange

Posted on by
Reply

Julian Assange, of Manning and Wikileaks infamy, has been indicted on violations of the Espionage Act in addition to the existing charges pending against him.

Naturally, the NLMSM is in an uproar over this putative attack on a free press.

…reignited debate over whether pursuing Mr. Assange for publishing classified information could lead to other cases against journalists who receive government secrets.

There are a couple of things on the NLMSM’s artificial dudgeon, though.  One is that a free press also has to be a responsible press—which includes respect for the law and acceptance of the consequences where the press engages in civil disobedience.  We’re all big boys and girls, though, the press’ and the Left’s contempt for us notwithstanding.  We’re fully capable of recognizing irresponsibility when we see it and disdaining pseudo-journalism when it’s presented.

The larger thing, though, is the role of law in our nation.  We’re either a nation of laws, or we are not.  We’re all equal under law, or some of us get special treatment—descending us into rule by law instead of rule of law.

The laws regarding receiving stolen goods are quite clear: that’s a crime, and the recipient(s) on conviction go to jail.  Except when it’s a journalist who receives the stolen property.  See, for instance, the news outlet that received and published the stolen Ellsberg papers, along with the hue and cry over holding Julian Assange—who’s not even a journalist, for all that he pretends to be—to the consequences from his having received the documents Manning had stolen and sent to him.

A free press requires journalists be allowed to break the same laws the rest of us must obey?  What’s the value of a press that cannot be trusted, that demonstrates its lawlessness by freely receiving stolen goods and profiting from the receipt by publishing the stolen material?

Here’s an alternative—a bare minimum of movement of the NLMSM back within the reach of the same laws the rest of us must obey.

Upon receipt of the stolen material, the news outlet and the receiving journalist must immediately return the originals of the material to the robbed entity and identify to law enforcement the person(s) and/or entity from which the material was received.  Upon return, the news outlet would be free to publish based on its copies of the stolen material.

Should the journalist or news outlet refuse, the journalist (or the news outlet’s chief editor, if the receiving journalist cannot be clearly identified) should be jailed until the originals are returned and the delivering person/entity identified.

Of course, overriding the above is whether the stolen material is classified (the Manning theft, for instance).  In this instance, the material and the receiving news outlet and its personnel would be subject to laws pertaining to (mis)handling classified material.

Union “Dues”

Posted on by
Reply

Now the taxpayer looks to be on the hook.  At least in New York.

[O]n May 1, New York’s state Senate voted to let strikers get benefits one week after walking off the job—essentially putting them on equal footing with those who are laid off.
If Governor Andrew Cuomo signs this bill, he’ll effectively be using New York’s unemployment-insurance program to subsidize union strikes, upending the balance of power between workers and management.

Union strikes are little indistinguishable from extortion, except that they’re legal. They’re used to threaten a company’s ability to function—to survive—unless they surrender to union demands.  “Nice little business you got here. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.”

In a way, though, Cuomo’s pandering makes sense. Since unions can’t commandeer pieces of the paychecks of non-union workers anymore, they have to make up the money loss from somewhere.

Enter the victim-taxpayer.

An Ill-Informed Candidate

Posted on by
2

On Fox News‘ Claremont, New Hampshire town hall with Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg Sunday, Buttigieg had this to say about abolishing our Electoral College.

“States don’t vote, people vote.  …if we’re going to call ourselves a democracy,” the US should move to a popular vote system.

When the moderator, Chris Wallace, asked further about that, particularly comparing the voice of small States like New Hampshire with large States like California, Buttigieg gave an unresponsive answer about how New Hampshire wouldn’t be harmed by abolishing the Electoral College because New Hampshire is one of the first-to-vote-in-primaries States.

There are so many things wrong with Buttigieg’s remarks; here are a couple biggies.

We don’t call ourselves a democracy.  We don’t call ourselves that because we are not a democracy; we are a republican democracy consisting of a federation of States.  As a republican democracy, States do, indeed, vote, doing so alongside citizens (not just “people”), and that’s by design.  The Great Compromise in the final agreement on our Constitution was the creation of the Senate as a separate house in our Congress, which body would give equal representation to the States as States—the two Senators per State structure.

This was intended to produce a number of outcomes.  Two of these were a guarantee that our nation’s member States all would be on an equal level among each other within our central, federal government; large population States would not dominate small population States.  Thus, we would not be a popular democracy with its inevitable devolution through a tyranny of a majority into mob rule.  We would, instead, be a republican democracy with greater protections for and balance of the rights of the minority along with the rights of the majority.

Associated with that is the Electoral College, which functionally extends the protection of small States from domination by large States to the election of our President and Vice President.  States are allocated a number of Electors equaling the sum of the number of Representatives a State has, which is based on that State’s population, and its two Senators.  Thus, States vote as States for these candidates alongside the citizens, with the citizens represented, in addition to their individual votes, a second time, indirectly through their State’s Electors.

Within that, Buttigieg’s facile answer that New Hampshire wouldn’t be harmed because it’s an early primary voter ignored similarly small States like New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and others—none of whom are early voters.  Rather, his answer was (how to put this delicately) dismayingly ignorant.

Anyone who paid attention in eight grade Civics knows all of this.  A man so ignorant of the structure of our republican democracy and the reasons for that structure simply is unqualified for the office of President.