Tag Archives: responsibilities

Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal

Posted on by
Reply

In a document Iran submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran noted its ability to expand its nuclear enrichment program in just ten years—now nine, since the weapons deal is a year old—and get its nuclear weapons program back on schedule.

What’s interesting here is not the existence of that capability, everyone but President Barack Obama (D) and his Secretary of State John Kerry knew the agreement allowed it.  What’s interesting is that Iran is so open about their intent to do exactly that, and that Iran is so open with their contempt for the Obama administration.

Democrats’ War on Women Continues

Posted on by
Reply

And now these wonderful people are actively going after babies, too.

After demanding immediate emergency funding [for developing a vaccine with which to combat the zika virus, which causes babies in infected pregnant women to be born badly disabled with malformed brains] for months, they walked out on their own bill on Thursday to use the issue as a campaign bludgeon against Republicans.

All for their personal political gain.

As of 7 July, 649 women in the US and territories have evidence of a Zika infection, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Those numbers are certain to rise in the summer months….

But Democrats don’t care about the women or their babies.  They’re only concerned with their partisan gains.  And Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is shamefully silent on the matter.

Elections have consequences.

Why is this even a Question?

Posted on by
Reply

Republicans officially petitioned the administration Thursday to deny Hillary Clinton access to secret information as Democrats’ presidential nominee, and some GOP lawmakers said if the intelligence community won’t do it, they’ll pass a bill to do it themselves.

Oh, wait—it’s a question because

The White House has said it won’t deny Mrs Clinton access….

On the excuse of tradition, don’t you know.

Never mind the tradition, and the requirement in most serious security régimes—like in a government—of revoking existing security clearances and denying further access to those who’ve committed security violations as egregious as even FBI Director James Comey has documented Clinton having done.

Some rules, some traditions, just don’t apply.  Not when they’re inconvenient.

The Other Supreme Court That’s in the Election Balance

Posted on by
Reply

This one is the National Labor Relations Board, a Democrat/union-dominated entity that is nearly the last word on what employers are allowed and required to do.

It’s the NLRB that threatened Boeing with labor unrest expensive lawsuits for its effrontery in wanting to build an aircraft manufacturing plant in the right-to-work state of South Carolina and forced Boeing to keep primary manufacturing in the union state of Washington.

It’s the NLRB that decided that franchise employees actually are jointly employed by the franchise—a McDonald’s burger joint, for instance—and the franchisor—McDonald’s corporate headquarters, for instance—a complete rewrite of the prior NLRB view of franchise employment.

It’s the NLRB that keeps pushing for card-checks at union elections whose purpose is to have the employees decide whether they want a union to represent them, a move designed solely to eliminate heretofore secret ballots in those elections.

It’s the NLRB that has pushed through, regarding those elections, the right of unions to demand an election within 30 days of the start of their public efforts to “organize” a company but without the company’s opportunity to respond in those 30 days—or even to begin to respond to the unions’ non-public efforts to organize.

It’s the NLRB that pushed through its “Persuader” Rule which requires employers to identify publicly all sources of consultation or advice the employer might have contacted—however peripherally—for thoughts on how to deal with unions.

The list goes on.  And on.

The NLRB already is dominated by a Democrat/union majority, and it will only get worse with a Democratic Party President and a Democratic Party-owned Senate making the appointments to the five-member board.

A Liberal Justice Talked out of Turn

Posted on by
Reply

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg now is in the business of publicly bashing politicians who don’t think like she does.

I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president.  For the country, it could be four years.  For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.

We can also turn her remarks around.

I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Hillary Clinton as our president.  For the country, it could be four years—or a dozen, with her insistence on extending Obama even further, and even farther left.  For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.

And Ginsburg had these gems:

I don’t expect that we’re going to see another affirmative action case [regarding Fisher v University of Texas, wherein Justice Anthony Kennedy gutted his own prior ruling in the case].  I think [Justice Kennedy] comes out as the great hero of this term.

And

It would be an impossible dream.  But I’d love to see Citizens United overruled[.]

The problem here isn’t that she’s engaging in political speech, though.  It’s that her political speech, because of her position and role in our Federal government—a Supreme Court Justice—means that whatever she says in the political arena can only prejudice all of her subsequent rulings.  With such political bashing, she’s predetermining her position on any case that comes before the Court, and not only those that might be brought under or by a Trump administration.

On the other hand, it’s good to know her prejudices—as well as those pre-written opinions on cases yet to come—beforehand, rather than discovering them in her opinions after the rulings have been announced.  Which emphasizes the importance of a question asked by a tweeter and quoted in The Washington Post piece at the first link above:

If there’s a redo of Bush v Gore, how does Ginsburg not recuse herself, given her Trump comments?

How, indeed?  Worse, how could we expect her to?