Tag Archives: ethics

More Nonsense

Posted on by
Reply

Or more Progressive-Democrat contempt for conservative women.  On tour to promote her book, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri says about the election outcome,

It does show that we don’t have any models for our young girls and young women who are coming up in the world now to look at for how to lead.

Sure.  Because Condoleezza Rice, Provost of Stanford University, ex-NSA, and ex-Secretary of State is such a terrible role model.

Because Nikki Haley, ex-State Representative in the South Carolina House, ex-Governor of South Carolina, and current UN Ambassador is such a terrible role model.

Because Sarah Palin, ex-Governor of Alaska and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate is such a terrible role model.

Because Carly Fiorina, ex-Hewlett-Packard CEO and 2016 Presidential candidate is such a terrible role model.

Because Elaine Chao, ex-Deputy Secretary of Transportation, ex-Peace Corps Director, ex-Labor Secretary, and current Labor Secretary is such a terrible role model.

Because Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R, TN) and current Senate candidate is such a terrible role model.

Because Pam Bondi, Florida Attorney General is such a terrible role model.

Because Joni Ernst, Lt Col (USA, Ret), ex-Iowa State Senator, and current Senator is such a terrible role model.

Because Alveda King, State Congresswoman in Georgia’s House of Representatives, is such a terrible role model.

Because the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, ex-UN Ambassador, is such a terrible role model.

Because Mia Love, Congresswoman from Utah is such a terrible role model.

Because Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, is such a terrible role model.

The list goes on; I’ve only begun to start scratching the surface.

But the Progressive-Democrat says “we don’t have any models for our young girls and young women…to look at for how to lead.”

Hmm….

A Good Move

Posted on by
Reply

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has declined, for now, to appoint a special counselor to investigate DoJ and FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton email “investigation” and other matters.

Instead, Sessions has gone one better.  He’s appointed John Huber, US Attorney for the District of Utah, and so not a denizen of the Beltway (like Special Counselor Robert Mueller is) to investigate the nature of the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page and connections, if any, between the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One, and to work with the DoJ IG to look into the FBI’s handling of Clinton’s email fiasco and the FBI’s interaction with the FISA star chamber court.

In essence, Huber’s appointment is equivalent to a special counselor appointment, but without the political baggage (although some will try to create baggage on the basis of his not being formally a special counselor).

While the IG has the expertise it needs to look into these matters, he can’t compel testimony, and he can’t prosecute, although his findings certainly can be used by an Attorney General to conduct prosecutions.  Huber, though, can compel testimony as part of his investigation and his work with the IG, and he can prosecute miscreants.  The two investigations—his own and his work with the IG—will produce all the results of a special counselor without serious political baggage.

The downside of special prosecutor assignments, whether explicit as with Robert Mueller, or tacit as with this appointment, is the lack of specificity of the assignment.  Sessions needs to lay out clearly the scope of Huber’s new assignment, including, especially, sharp boundaries for that scope, with no gray areas or penumbras surrounding it.

Warning Labels

Posted on by
Reply

Never minding a number of studies that indicate that coffee intake ranges from harmless to net beneficial, California has decided to require coffee companies must put cancer warning labels on their coffee.  Even more ludicrous, the presiding judge, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle wrote in part,

Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving…that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health.

This is the wrong criterion and the wrong holder of the burden.  California alleged carcigenic risk; it’s on them to prove the risk.  Beyond that, it’s not the State’s function to demand proof of beneficial outcomes; it’s the State’s function to demand lack of material harm.

I’m waiting for California’s warning labels on grapes, since their fermentation carries empirically demonstrated DUI risks.

The FBI’s Subpoena Response

Posted on by
Reply

After Attorney General Jeff Sessions told FBI Director Christopher Wray to cut the stonewalling and deliver up, promptly, the documents Congress had requested and then subpoenaed, Wray doubled the number of agents he had assigned to the task.

Wray also assured Congress he’d mended his ways.

Mr Wray’s statement pledges the FBI will be “transparent and responsive to legitimate congressional requests.” If not, Mr [House Judiciary Chairman Bob (R, VA)] Goodlatte and the House leadership must be willing to use their powers of contempt and impeachment to impose consequences.

This is a cynical sham. The target of a “Congressional request” is in no position to judge the request’s legitimacy, whether the target is the FBI or a mafia soldier.  Goodlatte needs to prepare the impeachment case, even though the Progressive-Democrats in the Senate will not approve.

Counting US Citizens is Illegal

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what California’s Attorney General, Xavier Bacerra (D), says.  The Commerce Department has said the 2020 census form will include a question asking whether the respondent is an American citizen, and Bacerra doesn’t like it.  In the op-ed he co-wrote with California’s Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) for the San Francisco Chronicle, he wrote

Including a citizenship question on the 2020 census is not just a bad idea—it is illegal[]

and he repeated that claim in one of his tweets.

Never mind that there’s plenty of precedent: the Census Bureau asked this question during its decennial census-takings every time from 1820 through 1950, and every year through today on its annual census sampling.

The two politicians claim further that

California, with its large immigrant communities, would be disproportionately harmed by depressed participation in the 2020 census.  An undercount would threaten at least one of California’s seats in the House of Representatives (and, by extension, an elector in the electoral college).

The second part of that claim is true—undercounting the eligible folks would reduce legitimate representation.  The first part of that claim is patently false.  Here’s what the 14th Amendment says on the matter [the 19th Amendment broadened the franchise to include women]:

…when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced….

Citizens of the United States (who also are citizens of California, as the 14th Amendment also makes clear) and legally resident non-citizen immigrants have no fear of answering the Census’ question.  The only folks who might be hesitant are the illegal aliens.  Since they’re not citizens, and so not eligible to vote, their “undercounting” can have no effect on California’s apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives or in the Electoral College.  Bacerra, especially, as the highly educated, trained, and talented lawyer that he is, knows this full well.

It’s plain that these Progressive-Democrats, in the expectation that illegal immigrants would vote Progressive-Democrat, want the illegals to dilute the votes of American citizens, not all of whom do vote Progressive-Democrat—even in California.

It’s also true that “undercounting” can have the effect of depressing Federal funds transfers to the States that are undercounted.  Here, though, it’s the responsibility of those States allowing illegal residents to stay—even actively protecting them—in violation of Federal law to pay the costs of those illegalities.  No Federal funds should be transferred for those costs.  These Progressive-Democrats, though, are anxious to keep the spigot of OPM wide open for their own spending imperatives.