Primary Chaos

Kentucky. Mitch McConnell’s state. A test for creating election chaos.

Any excuse will do. COVID works exceptionally well.

Having reduced the number of polling places from 3,700 to only 170 and using COVID as an excuse, can Mitch McConnell win in a ginned-up Republican primary? That is the question.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/22/politics/kentucky-poll-locations/index.html

What if the November election is chaos and the President claims the election results can’t be valid , will the Electoral College still meet? Could the President sue the Federal Election Commission and have a do-over election?

Probably not. The Constitution was written to have the House vote for the President and the Senate vote for the Vice President when the Electoral College vote fails to attain 270 votes for a President.

In all cases though, this President puts his thumb on the scale and distorts the truth of the weigh.

Who can the President fire and substitute a lackey to do his bidding?

Good question.

And now that the Attorney General is a new hired gun, will he obey the law or twist it to the President’s ends?

Another good question.

Can anyone vote Republican anymore?

There’s a title I never thought I’d write. And yet the rot and decay in Republican Party values has created an overwhelming stench.

Evidence demands a verdict. Consider the evidence:

a) A President who blames all his troubles on someone else. A President who demeans 49% of all Americans. A President who is actively wrenching Republicanism away from its core values of decency, respect, the rule of law and God, and replacing those values with buffoonery, humiliation, and maniacal tweets.

b) A Majority Leader in the Senate who perverted the impeachment process and emboldened and enabled a cover-up of criminal and unethical Executive Branch actions.

c) A federal Republican party that will not display nor support the humble and decent values of Ronald Reagan and countless other Republican presidents.  A congressional Republican Party that seeks to break the US Treasury during times of crisis.

d) A Republican Party that no longer believes in a Republic and instead seeks Presidential immunity from prosecution and immunity from congressional oversight,  a party who seeks a King to revere,  and a party who asserts that all accusations against the President are a crime.

How can and why should anyone vote for the rot in the Republican Party?

And how can anyone vote for the Democrat Party either? Socialistic, bleed-the-bank programs, corrupting the ethics of self-reliance, independent thinking, and the advancement of the greater good in all men, the Democratic Party has failed to engage its collective brain and has failed its mission to rear decent Americans.

If you believe in the decency of the common man, for goodness sake, vote for someone other than a Republican or a Democrat. If you want to save America, vote independently and vote for a different set of legislators.

 

Unum Supra Multa

The Treasury Department has ordered President Trump’s name be printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans…

It will be the first time a president’s name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one.

If I were a Trump loyalist, I might pee my pants over seeing his name on my  stimulus check.

This is only on checks, not on direct deposits, and will be under a line that says “Economic Impact Payment”.

As the greatest President ever (ROFL), I imagine he will one day want his face carved into Mt Rushmore and perhaps replace the Washington Monument with the Trump Monument.

I predict this check will become a symbol for the moment when America lost its way in the world. No longer a nation of laws and moral convictions, this check will mark the turning point in which American government serves the President…instead of an America in which the President supports the government of America as established by the Constitution.

When the President’s name appears on the check, you can forget “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of many, One). Instead it can be changed to “Unum supra multa” (One over Many).

God help us.

 

 

When should you fear the power of the President?

This is a good question and might even be an urgent one to answer.

A friend sent me the following link.

https://news.yahoo.com/oversight-erased-supreme-court-hijacked-071510076.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_04

Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been pushing the boundaries of how much power to grant POTUS. I’ve written before how the Supreme Court never fails to accede to POTUS perspective and always fails to rein him in. I’ve also written before about the Unitary Executive Theory that once elected, the President can do whatever he wants.

Now imagine a President unfettered by the rule of law and unphased by decorum. President Trump was given a get-out-of-jail-free card by Mitch McConnell three months ago, and the President is using it to control his political future, reduce Congressional oversight, and subvert the Constitution of the United States.

Is it time to fear the power of the President?

Let’s imagine for a moment that this virus began in September of an election year like this one. Would and could a President suspend a national election under the threat of public infection? This President would order it if it served his purpose to get re-elected.

Would the States go along with it, or would they hold the election anyway? I propose to you that the Republican governors under control of the Republican Party would defer their elections. The Democrat State Governors would hold their elections. The President would challenge the results, and this would end up in the hands of the Supreme Court, who would support the President.

Let me know when you would fear the power of the President in the comments.

 

The President Doesn’t Know…shhhh!

The President is supposed to be an administrator. Too bad President Trump doesn’t know this. (The President is not a king)

In the Executive Branch, the President is responsible for the quality of the cabinet level processes. He is not in charge of them, he is responsible for them. Which means if they are not working, he is supposed to do something about that. The President is supposed to faithfully execute the administration of laws in the United States.

Unfortunately, Presidents always want to be in charge and bend the laws to meet their personal agendas. Nobody cares if he/she adds a little emphasis here or there, but President Trump believes the cabinet should accede to his wishes like they were marketing or operations departments.

He doesn’t care about the law. His opinion is better than the law. Just ask him.

President Trump Removes Many IGs

From the New York Times:

Mr. Trump also nominated a senior Customs and Border Protection policy official, Jason Abend, to be the Defense Department inspector general. That position is vacant and is held on an acting basis by Glenn A. Fine, the deputy inspector general at the Pentagon and a longtime Justice Department inspector general with a reputation for independence.

This week, a group of fellow inspectors general named Mr. Fine to be the chairman of the new Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, with control of an $80 million budget to police how the government carries out the $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill. If Mr. Abend is confirmed, Mr. Fine would lose his acting role and could no longer lead the committee.

Mr. Trump also nominated three current and former Justice Department officials to be the new inspectors general at the C.I.A., the Education Department and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The president has been focused for weeks on rooting out administration officials perceived as disloyal.

In February, after the Republican-controlled Senate acquitted Mr. Trump of charges that he abused his power and obstructed Congress, the president ousted other administration officials who cooperated in the impeachment inquiry by providing testimony, including Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, and Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a National Security Council aide.

The White House marched Colonel Vindman out with security guards, along with Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, an Army officer who also worked on the National Security Council staff but had played no role in the impeachment inquiry, but he happens to be Colonel Vindman’s brother.

Before his role in bringing to light Mr. Trump’s actions toward Ukraine that led to his impeachment, Mr. Atkinson had been nominated to the position by Mr. Trump and confirmed unanimously by the Senate.

The two top Democrats on the intelligence oversight panels expressed vehement objections on Friday, portraying Mr. Trump’s move as political and retribution.

Autocracy in the New Millenium?

It appears to be true.

Across the globe, elected leaders are seeking to kill democracy and assert themselves as rulers for life in their countries.

In March 2018, Donald Trump, addressing a crowd of donors at his Florida estate, told what sounded like a joke. He was talking about the recent amendment of China’s constitution to remove presidential term limits, allowing Xi Jinping to serve in that office indefinitely. About Xi, Trump said: “He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give it a shot someday.” The crowd cheered and applauded in response. In fact, Trump has told one version or another of this joke many times since becoming president.

And though Trump’s remarks are generally perceived as facetious, many of his counterparts on the world stage are quite serious. In January, Vladimir Putin addressed the Russian nation in an annual State of the Union–esque speech. Alongside pledges to improve living standards by, among other things, offering free hot meals to schoolchildren, he proposed major constitutional reforms that could see the presidential office weakened and the prime ministry and State Council strengthened—measures very likely aimed at ensuring that Putin can remain in power after 2024, when constitutional term limits will force him out of the presidency.

I remember when President Bush II  was reported to have said (paraphrasing?) “The Constitution is just another God-Dxxx piece of paper”. (You can read that here if you like.)

Do you remember reading about Kings who sought legitimacy for their rule by having the Pope recognize their earthly authority?

And what about The Divine Right of Kings. ?

It seems that every autocrat seeks legitimacy when they assert they are the rulers over others.

And as near as I can tell, there is a steady progression towards The Unitary Executive Theory in the US in which no other branch of government can challenge a sitting President even when the President overrides Congressional intent.

The Autocrat of the United States may be just around the corner. It might be President Donald Trump…

…or maybe Jared Kushner…

Should Congress spy on the Executive Branch?

The IRS lost all of the emails related to Lois Lerner and the Tea Party attack by the IRS. Of course this was no accident. It was directed by someone who wishes to prevent the President from looking bad and to prevent Congress from having any physical evidence of wrongdoing.

Not even President Richard Nixon had the poor judgement to destroy his taped evidence of misdeeds but then President Obama is no President Nixon by any measure.

This leads to my question: Should Congress set up a surveillance process to watch the shenanigans of the President?

1) The Executive Branch has all the authority of a dictator in a third world country.

2) The Executive Branch is increasingly filled with sycophants who refuse to do their duty to care for the Constitution and the country. Instead these sycophants hide the misdeeds and refuse to prosecute offenders. They no longer police themselves. The government is no longer by and for the people but by and for the political parties.

3) If Congress does not do this then who will?

We know that the CIA, NSA, and others surveill Congress but who watches the watchers?

The Executive Branch has too much authority and control without oversight. Maybe it’s time to put in place some covert oversight through Congress.

 

 

Kudo to Sen. Ron Johnson

Here is why:

“On Monday, Jan. 6, I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America. By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.

The president and his congressional supporters have also broken their promise to the American people that ObamaCare was going to be so good that they would participate in it just like everyone else. In truth, many members of Congress feel entitled to an exemption from the harsh realities of the law they helped jam down Americans’ throats in 2010. Unlike millions of their countrymen who have lost coverage and must now purchase insurance through an exchange, members and their staffs will receive an employer contribution to help pay for their new plans.

It is clear that this special treatment, via a ruling by the president’s Office of Personnel Management, was deliberately excluded in the law. During the drafting, debate and passage of ObamaCare, the issue of how the law should affect members of Congress and their staffs was repeatedly addressed. Even a cursory reading of the legislative history clearly shows the intent of Congress was to ensure that members and staff would no longer be eligible for their current coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan.

The law states that as of Jan. 1, 2014, the only health-insurance plans that members of Congress and their staffs can be offered by the federal government are plans “created under” ObamaCare or “offered through an Exchange” established under ObamaCare.

Furthermore, allowing the federal government to make an employer contribution to help pay for insurance coverage was explicitly considered, debated and rejected. In doing so, Congress established that the only subsidy available to them would be the same income-based subsidy available to every other eligible American accessing insurance through an exchange. This was the confidence-building covenant supporters of the law made to reassure skeptics that ObamaCare would live up to its billing. They wanted to appear eager to avail themselves of the law’s benefits and be more than willing to subject themselves to the exact same rules, regulations and requirements as their constituents.

Eager, that is, until they began to understand what they had actually done to themselves. For instance, by agreeing to go through an exchange they cut themselves off from the option of paying for health care with pretax dollars, the way many Americans will continue to do through employer-supplied plans. That’s when they went running to President Obama for relief. The president supplied it via the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which issued a convoluted ruling in October 2013 that ignores the clear intent and language of the law. After groping for a pretext, OPM essentially declared the federal government a small employer—magically qualifying members of Congress for coverage through a Small Business Health Options Program, exchanges where employers can buy insurance for their employees.

Neat trick, huh? Except that in issuing the ruling, OPM exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and legal authority. In directing OPM to do so, President Obama once again chose political expediency instead of faithfully executing the law—even one of his own making. If the president wants to change the law, he needs to come to Congress to have them change it with legislation, not by presidential fiat or decree.

The legal basis for our lawsuit (which I will file with a staff member, Brooke Ericson, as the other plaintiff) includes the fact that the OPM ruling forces me, as a member of Congress, to engage in activity that I believe violates the law. It also potentially alienates members of Congress from their constituents, since those constituents are witnessing members of Congress blatantly giving themselves and their staff special treatment.

Republicans have tried to overturn this special treatment with legislation that was passed by the House on Sept. 29, but blocked in the Senate. Amendments have also been offered to Senate bills, but Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote on any of them.

I believe that I have not only legal standing but an obligation to go to court to overturn this unlawful executive overreach, end the injustice, and provide a long overdue check on an executive that recognizes fewer and fewer constitutional restraints.”

************************

ReasonableCitizen says “Hear!Hear!”

President Obama Unaware…News at 11 pm every day

Every week the news media reports a White House Insider ( aka “leak”) saying that President Obama was “unaware”. I was planning to write a post about it but so many people beat me to the punch that I thought  I would just link to the best of them:

News Busters

American Thinker

And then I thought of future headlines:

President Obama unaware of Mrs. Obama and children

President Obama unaware that he was lost on White House grounds

President Obama unaware of Constitution

President Obama unaware that President Reagan can’t remember anything from his Presidency either.

President Obama unaware he affirmed his unawareness last week when he  remarked on the topic today.

President Obama unaware of this blog

( Ok, that last one might actually be true but it is unlikely to be a headline)