Tag Archives: ethics

Gaslighting

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article—and this news outlet is not at all alone in this—centered on ICE arrests of those in our nation illegally who have criminal histories, the newswriter, Michelle Hackman, insists on calling them “immigrants,” even as she acknowledges in her lede that they’re here illegally.

…targeting immigrants in the country illegally with criminal backgrounds, including minor offenses.

And

…the agency [ICE] is still conducting arrests by pursuing immigrants on so-called “target lists” of criminals developed by the agency….

No. These folks are not “immigrants,” nor are they, as they are often referred to, “migrants,” illegal or otherwise. They are illegal aliens. On the matter of criminal history, that includes their crime of entering our nation illegally.

They cannot be immigrants under any circumstance unless and until they enter our nation legally. They ceased to be migrants when they entered Mexico (or Canada) illegally by those nations’ laws. Even those who entered Mexico or Canada legally, and so might be migrants there, ceased to be migrants and became illegal aliens when they entered our nation illegally.

Nor does the gaslighting stop there. Abeer Ayyoub, Jared Malsin, and Anat Peled have a piece centered on the return of Gazans to northern Gaza and the destruction wreaked there by Hamas in its war of extermination against Israel. These newswriters—and they’re not alone on this, either—determinedly refer to Hamas as Palestinian militant group Hamas. Again, no. These thugs are not militants; they are terrorists.

As long as newswriters insist on gaslighting us about these, neither they nor their journalism guild in general, will have any credibility at all on these subjects, and by extension, on any other—they might be gaslighting on those subjects, too.

Aside: by entering our nation illegally, illegal aliens have placed themselves outside the boundaries set by our law. By doing that, they have denied our nation’s jurisdiction over them. That has serious implications regarding birthright citizenship and our 14th Amendment, with its requirement of subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States] in order to become citizens.

Mission Addendum

Posted on by
Reply

I posted a bit ago about the missions of DOGE and Congress. Here are some data that lend concreteness to that post’s claims; these data concern some $162 billion in misspent monies.

That figure is likely an undercount because not all federal agencies follow reporting guidelines.
Under the Payment Integrity Information Act, agencies are required to manage payments by identifying risks, taking corrective measures, and reporting on their efforts. However, the GAO found that some agencies are not fully following the required guidelines for reporting data annually.

GAO’s 2023 report on the matter had this, summarized at the JtN link above (the second one):

10 federal agencies under the Chief Financial Officers Act were noncompliant in fiscal 2022. Additionally, nine of these agencies failed to meet standards for the same programs in 2021 and 2022.
Agencies that remain noncompliant with payment integrity standards for two or more consecutive years must submit additional proposals to the Office of Management and Budget. OMB is key in dealing with improper payments and outlining improvement plans.
The plans must be included in the agency’s annual budget submission….

GAO identified those agencies that are noncompliant for two consecutive years as

  • DoA
  • DoD
  • DoEd
  • HHS
  • HUD
  • DoL
  • DoT(!)
  • VA
  • SBA

GAO then asked for this:

GAO recommended that OMB ensure that noncompliant agencies explicitly include plans of improvement and plans to achieve compliance in their annual financial statements, post the plans on PaymentAccuracy.gov, or communicate them directly to the relevant congressional committees. OMB agreed with the recommendations.

That’s much too soft. Years of such Pretty Pleases are how we got to these billions of misspent—and willfully unreported—dollars. The management personnel below President Donald Trump’s (R) replacing appointees who remain after those appointees are installed need to be terminated for cause and reallocated to the private sector. Those agencies’ budgets also need to have portions of their budgets equal to the un- or misreported expenditures withheld until reporting and actual spending is brought into compliance.

Given DoD’s blatant disregard for spending requirements, it’s necessary to be especially draconian with that bunch—their refusals to comply cost lives and endanger our national freedom. It’s true enough that DoD’s contractors contribute to the money failures, and they need to be dealt with including contract cancelation, but the overarching failure here is DoD’s decision to not bother with enforcing the financial reporting requirements of those contractors.

Bureaucratic Passive-Aggressive Resistance

Posted on by
Reply

It’s in progress, as Federal agency personnel pretend they don’t know how to do their jobs in light of President Donald Trump’s (R) directives to them.

The Transportation Department temporarily shut down a computer system for road projects. Health agencies stopped virtually all external communications in a directive that risked silencing timely updates on infectious diseases. A hiring freeze left agencies wondering how parts of the government could adapt to new demands. Confusion loomed over how agencies should disburse funds allocated by the previous administration.

Computers are confused about how to deal with existing and proposed road projects. Sure.

Health agencies personnel are holding their breath until they turn blue in the face—or get their way. These personnel are self-selecting for the coming RIF.

Managers who can’t figure out how to use the personnel they have—and have had all along, less retirements and resignations—to continue their statutory mission are demonstrating their unfitness to be managers.

Funds allocated by the Biden administration—allocated, mind you, not spent—should not be spent. It’s not that hard.

Then there’s this bit of resistance:

[S]ome longtime federal employees said the chaos seemed more extreme this week due in part to wide-spanning differences between the agendas of the previous administration and the incoming one.

This is an example of the failure of the current civil service system and why it needs to be replaced. There’s no reason for the chaos: the so-called wide-spanning differences don’t exist. The previous administration’s agenda no longer exists, so there’s nothing from which to differ.

To be sure, there is a new agenda and a new corporate culture in place; if those long-time Federal employees can’t adapt, and do so quickly, they need to be retired or RIFed. They’re just in the way, wasting us taxpayers’ payroll.

Folks, mostly on the Left and in the Progressive-Democratic Party, wonder why there’s so little confidence, much less trust, in Federal bureaucrats and the Bureaucratic State. We average Americans, who aren’t as dumb as the Left tries to make us out to be, understand full well why.

There’s Clemency, and There’s Clemency

Posted on by
Reply

On his way, almost literally, out the door, now-ex-President Joe Biden (D) issued preemptive pardons to Congressional members of the J6 Committee and the committee’s staffers. Congressman Barry Loudermilk (R, GA), running the follow-on committee for the last two years, has the right of it:

You don’t forgive somebody of something unless they have potentially done something[.]
I mean, to me, this is basically, if not an actual admission, it’s truly the perception of admitting that there was wrongdoing done[.]

And, as Just the News put it at the link:

It was a stunning act…that begged a provocative question: what did an official panel of Congress do that was so bad it needed to be absolved by an act of presidential clemency?

It’s instructive that none of those preemptively pardoned—Congressmen and staffers alike—have rejected Biden’s pardon, not even on the grounds that they don’t need it and don’t want it, being innocent of wrong-doing in the first place. Not even Senator Adam Schiff (D, CA) who as Congressman was a member of that committee, declined the pardon, going no farther than to protest the lack of necessity for it.

Winning in court is a high financial price to pay for one’s innocence, to be sure, but those haled in have avenues for being made whole: malicious prosecution, for instance, and in civil cases, collecting costs from those who sued and lost. They’re not even settling in order to avoid costs; they’re ducking down behind their pardons.

How would they get their reputations back after going through trial? On the other hand, how will they get their reputations back after having been pardoned? At least with court outcomes, they’d have official declarations of no wrong-doing. Their acceptance of these pardons deny them even of that much, even as those acceptances do nothing to lend credibility to claims of having done nothing wrong.

I echo JtN’s question: what have they done that’s so bad they fear exposure in court?

Pardons and Culpability

Posted on by
Reply

Then-still President Joe Biden (D), if only barely at the time, issued pardons to the rest of his immediate family, to the J6 Congressmen and staffers (more on this in a separate post), overwrought bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci, and to wokesters like General Mark Milley (Army, Ret) just in case they might have committed criminal offenses and be haled into criminal court to answer charges. Among the resulting hues and cries is the angst that this puts those folks beyond retribution. While the last minute and preemptive nature of the pardons has the potential of setting an ugly precedent, they are not at all beyond retribution.

All of those pardoned folks, every single one of them, is still legally open to Federal subpoena to testify before Congress concerning the things they did, are accused of doing, and are reputed to have done. Their pardoned status, which does inure them against Federal criminal charges, actually greatly weakens their ability to resist requirements to testify with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the witness stand. The only criminal consequences they could suffer would stem from that post-pardon testimony, should they choose to lie at that time.

Beyond the inability to resist providing testimony, Presidential pardons extend only to Federal crimes and Federal charges of Federal crimes. They do not provide any protection from State or local criminal charges (which would be their only shield against Federal subpoenas to testify). Especially, Presidential pardons provide no protection against civil suits over those very same behaviors, accused behaviors, and reputed behaviors.

All that’s lacking for any of this to happen is the public’s and Congressmen’s will to bring the suits.