Tag Archives: ethics

On Whose Side Is He?

Posted on by
1

[Steve] Bannon has been recruiting and promoting challengers to GOP incumbents and the party’s preferred candidates in next year’s midterm elections.

And

…it could also imperil Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Indeed.  He’s trying to get farther right candidates nominated in place of incumbents, but he’s likely to drag the party too far right to suit a center-right population of Americans, force serious candidates to expend resources on frivolous primaries (rather than primaries involving serious Conservative candidates), even get candidates like Christine O’Donnell, Todd Akin, or Sharron Angle nominated—which in their time cost the Republicans entirely winnable Senate seats..

He could do more good for the Republican Party, and frankly for our Republic, by doing these things within the Progressive-Democratic Party to ensure incumbents spend their resources on primaries and are dragged farther left, even get Left-wing extremists nominated onto the Progressive-Democratic tickets in the general elections.

Of course Bannon knows all of this full well.  Hence my question.  Is he really willing to risk the Senate and lose the chance for a Republican President and Senate to get more Conservative jurists appointed to the Supreme Court and to our lower Federal courts?

Or, another question: is this just sour grapes run amok because Bannon can’t be a White House player anymore?

Threats

Posted on by
Reply

The German government now is stooping to naked threats in an effort to keep President Donald Trump from not renewing certification of Iran’s compliance with ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) Executive Agreement with Iran on the latter’s nuclear weapons program.

The threat begins with the distortion that decertification constitutes withdrawal from the EA—of course it does not, and the members of the German government know that full well.  The threat, though, is made naked by German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel:

It’s imperative that Europe sticks together on this issue.  We also have to tell the Americans that their behavior on the Iran issue will drive us Europeans into a common position with Russia and China against the USA.

If we don’t coddle an enemy, Germany will side with other enemies of ours.

Some friend.  In the event, the denial of certification went through, anyway.

And there is no withdrawal from the JCPOA; although Trump did remind folks that he had the authority to do so, and he warned that if Congress didn’t act, he would.

Duties

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s decertification of Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA—because they’ve not been, and after two certs (six months) of data collection reasonably free from Obama administration bureaucrats’ fogging, the data are clear.

The Wall Street Journal headlined their piece earlier in the week that forecast that decision with this:

Trump Leaves Thorny Issues at GOP Lawmakers’ Doorstep

This is entirely appropriate. Our elected representatives should be handling the thorny issues instead of cowering under their desks avoiding “hard choices.”

On the question of what to do with the decert, House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R, TX) was paraphrased by the WSJ as saying [the emphasis is mine to highlight the WSJ‘s characterization of the timing]:

the question for lawmakers now is, “What would happen if we change our mind and void the deal, what would be the consequences?”

This is disingenuous. They’ve had that question before them since the JCPOA was signed. Of course they already know the answers, having kept plugging current affairs into the consideration as they’ve occurred these last couple of years.

Just like they’ve known for the last eight years what bills to pass that would repeal and replace Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.  Just like they’ve known for the last dozen years what bills to pass to reform our nation’s tax code and spending habits.

But there’s that duty avoidance in favor of ducking and covering again.

Projecting

Posted on by
Reply

KKK robes are on display as part of Baltimore artist Paul Rucker’s installation entitled “Rewind,” now installed at York College’s Wolf Hall in York, PA. The college barred the public from seeing the art exhibition on slavery, white supremacy and racist violence against blacks, deeming it “potentially disturbing to some.”

York College spokeswoman Mary Dolheimer issued this statement, and she actually was serious:

The images, while powerful, are very provocative and potentially disturbing to some. This is especially the case without the benefit of an understanding of the intended educational context of the exhibit[.]

Because we ordinary American citizens are just too stupid to understand anything without our Betters to “guide” us.

We’re also just too far into our victimhood fragility to be able to handle a bit of art.

Or because the self-important Left is wrapped up in their collective learned helplessness, and they assume everyone is at least as fragile.

Civil War

Posted on by
1

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy demanded that Catalonia “clarify” its position following its referendum on independence from Spain following Catalonian President Carles Puigdemont’s declaration of Catalonian independence and his immediate suspension of that in favor of a period of negotiation with Madrid.

However, Rajoy’s pretended confusion says volumes about him without adding a syllable to the subject’s discussion.  His pretense is nothing but an attempt to obfuscate and distract from his deliberate decision to use violence to suppress a referendum when he could have peacefully arrested the referendum leaders in the aftermath of its defeat at the polls.

Rajoy’s preference for violence and its import are confirmed by Rajoy’s subsequent step.

[T]he Spanish government triggered the first step toward invoking Article 155 in the name of preserving the unity of the nation.

Article 155 of the Spanish constitution—a brief provision modeled on a similar measure in Germany’s constitution—allows the central government to suspend some of the powers of a region under specific conditions.

This is just a naked exercise in power and not at all a willingness to accept—or even begin discussing acceptance of—Puigdemont’s olive branch.

Madrid, by acting in ways that would force a civil war seems more interested in that than in any peaceful resolution.  Indeed, Rajoy is seeking to preempt peace.

This is about Rajoy’s ego and his demand for power and the abject surrender of his enemies.