January 30-31, 2017
Jan 30 01:02 Interesting legal theory Jan 30 08:43 Democrats' manufactured uproar Jan 30 09:39 Fact-checking the Pi-Press Jan 31 00:10 All obstruction all the time Jan 31 10:01 Yates fired for insubordination Jan 31 11:07 Obstructionist Dems stage walkout Jan 31 14:29 SEIU Healthcare's corruption?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Interesting legal theory
This article puts forth an interesting legal theory, though I'm not sure it's applicable. The novel legal theory revolves around whether President Trump's executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional. I'm betting this theory fails.
In the article, Damon Root brings up the original Obamacare lawsuit, otherwise known as National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, aka NFIB v. Sebelius. Mr. Root notes that "At issue was whether Congress exceeded its Spending Clause powers when it threatened to cut off all existing Medicaid funding to any state that refused to expand Medicaid in accordance with the new health care law. The federal government's Medicaid expansion amounted to a 'gun to the head,' the Supreme Court held. 'A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act's expansion in health care coverage...stands to lose not merely 'a relatively small percentage' of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it.'" That sort of 'economic dragooning...leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce.'"
The difference between the commandeering of state budgets in NFIB v. Sebelius and cutting off of law enforcement grants is that the ACA told states that they had to expand Medicaid. The federal government, through the ACA, said that states that didn't expand Medicaid would lose all Medicaid funding. The withholding of funding to sanctuary cities isn't commandeering because these sanctuary cities opted to apply for grants in exchange for helping the Department of Homeland Security with immigration-related issues.
In NFIB v. Sebelius, the federal government told states what they had to do without giving them an option. Cutting off funds to sanctuary cities isn't the same because these cities applied for (think requested ) federal grants. In exchange for these grants, those cities sign maintenance of service agreements that obligate them to specific things. In this instance, that means helping DHS capture illegal aliens.
The short story is simple. These sanctuary cities want the money but they refuse to enforce the law. That isn't commandeering. That's negotiating in bad faith.
What's ignored is what's important. After Congress appropriates the money, it's the Executive Branch's responsibility to ensure that the money is spent in accordance to the law. With sanctuary cities, they aren't spending the money in accordance with our nation's laws. It isn't just within the Trump administration's rights to monitor how cities spend this grant money. It's their affirmative responsibility to verify that this grant money is spent in compliance with our nation's laws.
Summarizing, commandeering is when the federal government tells local governments what they must spend their money on. In this instance, cutting off grants that cities requested in exchange for doing things that the federal government wants done isn't commandeering. That's simple contract law.
Posted Monday, January 30, 2017 1:02 AM
No comments.
Democrats' manufactured uproar
This article points to the possibility that the Democrats' uproar over the so-called Muslim ban is manufactured. The article starts by saying "Many of President Donald Trump's core political supporters had a simple message on Sunday for the fiercest opponents of his immigration ban: Calm down. The relaxed reaction among the kind of voters who drove Trump's historic upset victory - working- and middle-class residents of Midwest and the South - provided a striking contrast to the uproar that has gripped major coastal cities, where thousands of protesters flocked to airports where immigrants had been detained."
Let's get serious about something. Democrats didn't utter a peep in 2011 when then-President Obama temporarily stopped admitting Iraqis when 2 al-Qa'ida in Iraq terrorists were discovered in Bowling Green, KY after getting admitted as refugees. The Washington Post's 'fact-checker', Glenn Kessler tweeted his explanation for why the media didn't say anything about Obama's temporary halt in bringing in refugees, saying "two big differences: 1) pause was not announced at the time, done quietly. reporters only found out years later. 2) not based on religion." Roxanne Chester put Kessler in his place with this tweet , saying "The most transparent adm did things they didn't publish? Isn't it the job of a free press to monitor that?"
The chances of the Democrats' protests being spontaneous aren't high. They're pretty unlikely. It's difficult to say that the grass roots are rising up when they're rent-a-protesters. If these 'grass roots' activists are that into human rights, why didn't they say anything about this ?
These protests are as phony as the Democrats. It's that simple.
Posted Monday, January 30, 2017 8:43 AM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 30-Jan-17 09:42 AM
To quote our former President: elections have consequences.
Fact-checking the Pi-Press
This article in the Pi-Press is disgusting in its dishonesty. In the article, the 'reporter' says that "Trump's highly controversial order suspends refugee admissions for 120 days and bars all immigration for 90 days of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries with terrorism concerns: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Those now being barred from the country include refugees who have already been thoroughly vetted by U.S. agencies ."
Either this reporter is telling an outright lie or he's incredibly ignorant of the truth. Though Politifact attempts to sweep things under the carpet, the fact remains that FBI Director James Comey testified that "We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but : there'll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person."
Politifact tried spinning things by saying "But did James Comey actually say the FBI "cannot properly vet" people coming from the Middle East? No, he didn't. Beruff is distorting a point Comey was making about a flaw in the vetting process, but he was reiterating the system in place was actually much better than it had been in the past."
Here's the real exchange:
Ranking member Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) asked Comey, "Mr. Director, before this committee, [FBI] Assistant Director [Michael] Steinbach said that the concerns in Syria is that we don't have the systems in place on the ground to collect the information to vet. That would be the concern. Databases don't hold the information on these individuals. Is that still the position of the department?"
"Yes, I think that's the challenge we're all talking about, is that we can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but we're not gonna - there'll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person," said Comey. "That's what Assistant Director Steinbach was talking about," he added.
Not having verifiable data to compare against isn't "a flaw in the vetting process." That's admitting that it's impossible to vet people. Here's video of FBI Director Comey's testimony:
That's pretty open-and-shut testimony.
Posted Monday, January 30, 2017 9:39 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Jan-17 07:27 AM
People read PiPress? Really?
All obstruction all the time
The Democratic Party of Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Scoop Jackson is ancient history. The Democratic Party of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, aka The One-Man Pocket Veto, and (especially) Chuck Schumer can be described succinctly. They party of Obama, Reid and Schumer is all obstruction, all the time.
This article highlights just how unhinged today's Democratic Party is. The article opens by saying "Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Monday predicted that Democrats would launch a filibuster against whoever President Trump picks for the Supreme Court. 'This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,' Merkley told Politico. 'We will use every lever in our power to stop this. ... I will definitely object to a simple majority.'"
This isn't surprising. Democrats are upset because they thought they'd get former President Obama's third term. They thought they'd win back the majority in the Senate, too, so they could confirm lots of liberal justices. Instead, they nominated a corrupt politician who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead, they gained 2 seats in the Senate when they needed 5.
The important point, though, is that today's Democratic Party isn't interested in being public servants who listen to their constituents. Today's Democratic Party isn't interested in putting America first. Today's Democratic Party is mostly about complaining when they don't get their way. Today's Democratic Party is about obstruction when people say no to their ideological wish list.
Simply put, Sen. Merkley has passionately and emphatically stated that his fidelity is to the Democratic Party, not the people he was elected to represent or the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.
The Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), which has ties to McConnell, quickly sent out emails questioning whether the red-state Democrats would back Merkley's filibuster.
Of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the group said: "Will he stand with the people of his state who overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump to be able to pick a Supreme Court nominee? Or will he stand with [Sens.] Elizabeth Warren [Mass.], Bernie Sanders [Vt.], and the rest of the Democratic caucus that only cares about its far left base of permanent protesters?"
If Democrats want to filibuster President Trump's SCOTUS nominee, let them. That will expose them as obstructionists who obstruct for the sake of appeasing their political base. Democrats don't care about this:
Democrats only care about maintaining power.
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:10 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Jan-17 07:26 AM
Trump should flip off the obstructionist senators and nominate Garland.
A deserving bunch, Mitch M. at the head of the pack, and it would build political capital. Trust.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Jan-17 10:10 AM
No thanks. I'd prefer a justice that's actually read the Constitution. I don't want another politician in a black robe.
Yates fired for insubordination
Sally Yates decided Monday night was the perfect time to not do her job. The good news is that President Trump decided that national security trumped putting up with corrupt lawyers . What triggered Ms. Yates' termination was the fact that she was frustrated "with a President who seems to be running roughshod over American policy, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, announced she would not defend the order. Yates said she would refuse to put the power of the Department of Justice behind this measure in the courts. Human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties supporters were bolstered by her defiance."
It isn't Yates' responsibility to agree or disagree with the policy. Yates' responsibility is to uphold the law. She said that she wouldn't defend President Trump's executive order on vetting. Whether that fits the legal definition of insubordination is something others can debate. What's indisputable is whether it fits the dictionary definition of insubordination . That definition is "the quality or condition of being insubordinate, or of being disobedient to authority". Dana Boente, the new acting head of the Justice Department, said that he'll enforce and defend the laws of this land.
Of course, Sen. Schumer isn't impressed:
"The firing of Sally Yates underscores how important it is to have an Attorney General who will stand up to the White House when they are violating the law," said Schumer, who has choked up while discussing the impact of Trump's travel ban. "Many people have doubts about whether Jeff Sessions can be that person."
Speaking of speaking truth to power, why was Sen. Schumer silent so often when the Obama administration's decisions got people killed? This article highlights Sen. Schumer's insincerity:
When an American facility was under attack in Libya and the president, secretary of state, and others did not lift a finger to save the Americans, I did not see any protests, outrage, or empathy from the media, Hollywood, or Democrats - nor when Obama, Hillary, and others concocted alternative facts instead of telling the truth. Instead of the media calling the president and Hillary the liars they were, they went after Republicans for trying to get to the truth. I did not see Schumer shed a tear for the families of those who died.
Sen. Schumer, spare me the theatrics. You aren't a man of integrity. You're a man of poorly scripted theatrics.
This video shows how the legal merits of President Trump's EO should be debated:
Finally, isn't it time Democrats allowed a vote for Jeff Sessions to become the next US Attorney General?
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:01 AM
No comments.
Obstructionist Dems stage walkout
This morning, Senate Democrats staged a protest walkout of the Finance Committee hearing. Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch had scheduled confirmation votes for Tom Price and Steve Mnuchin. Instead, Democrats proved that they're incapable of governing. (It's impossible to govern if you don't show up, right?) The simple truth is that this walkout essentially ended the political careers of 4 Democrat senators. Vulnerable Democratic senators serving on the Committee are Bill Nelson of Florida, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Mark Warner of Virginia. Nelson, Brown, McCaskill and Casey are up for re-election in 2018.
Chairman Hatch is right in criticizing Democrats for this boycott. First, let's go over what happened. According to the article , "Senate Democrats on Tuesday refused to attend a committee vote on two of President Trump's more controversial nominees, effectively delaying their consideration. Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee boycotted votes to advance Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Trump's pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and Steven Mnuchin, his selection to head the Treasury Department. The pair had been among some of the more contentious selections to join Trump's Cabinet."
Let's cut this crap. Pete Schroeder's description of Price and Mnuchin as "controversial" is parroting the Democrats' chanting points. They aren't controversial. They're just highly qualified people that the Democrats vehemently disagree with. Further, Democrats are denying that they're protesting this hearing for political reasons. This video gives the Democrats' official explanation for why they're protesting the hearing:
According to their 'official' explanation, Democrats insist that Dr. Price and Mr. Mnuchin lied to the Committee. That's a lie. Democrats haven't offered a single bit of proof that justifies that accusation. The key for the Democrats is that they're throwing out these accusations without providing proof, knowing that the media won't question the Democrats' accusations.
The Democrats are sore losers, with a heavy emphasis on them being losers. They lost the election. Rather than accepting defeat and putting Americans first, Democrats are putting political gamesmanship first.
Democrats said they wanted to bring Price and Mnuchin in for further questions, saying some of their statements did not line up with the facts.
" We have great concern that Chairman Hatch is asking us to vote today on two nominees who out and out lied to our committee ," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). Both Price and Mnuchin had been targeted fiercely by Democrats on a range of ethical issues. Price was pressed on his investment activity in various medical companies, and whether he improperly mixed his political activity with his personal portfolio.
Where's the proof, Sen. Brown? Accusations aren't proof. The truth is that Sen. Brown hasn't offered proof for his accusations because it doesn't exist.
The only thing that's worse than the Democrats' wild accusations is the media's willingness to parrot the Democrats' accusations as Gospel truth. If the media won't do its job, we should treat them with contempt. They aren't speaking truth to power because they aren't interested in the truth. The Agenda Media is interested only in advancing the progressive agenda.
The good news for Republicans is that the American people voted on this. They rejected the "dishonest media". Finally, if Democrats continue to refuse to govern, they should expect to take a terrible beating in the 2018 midterm elections.
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:07 AM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 31-Jan-17 06:52 PM
What's next? Will it be a Wisconsin style escape of senators to another country to avoid doing their job? Perhaps these Dems are just sore losers? When the entire democratic caucus of the WI senate fled to Illinois the outcome resulted in a stronger republican majority. It looks like the Dems have failed to learn from the adage "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Feb-17 01:00 AM
John, I don't understand the question mark at the end of this sentence:
Perhaps these Dems are just sore losers?
Wasn't that established years ago? The important thing is that they're losers. Whether they're sore losers or just happy-go-lucky losers, I don't care. LOL
SEIU Healthcare's corruption?
This article highlights some questionable activities during the SEIU Healthcare's organizing drive. If these PCAs can get an investigation into SEIU Healthcare started, look for that investigation to thin out SEIU leadership. Several statements in the article are important for the readers to hear about.
First, Russ Brown, who is helping with the law firm's investigation, said "We had about three teams of canvassers, we started doing postal mailings, we started doing phone banks and a website. That was based on a list that we believed to be mostly good. We were thinking the list might be off by as much as fifteen to twenty percent. As it turned out the list was mostly bad."
The next paragraph states "Some addresses led to empty lots where there was no house. Others led to homes where people lived that didn't match the name provided on the list. The questionable list, however, wasn't the only thing amiss. The campaign also alleges identity theft, unlawful due deductions, and voter disenfranchisement of those opposed."
Then there's this:
"There was just a lot of different weird things going on," Brown said. "At the places where we would find people we would hear stories about how all of a sudden their dues were being taken out of their Medicaid payments and they specifically told the union they were not interested."
Then there's this, too:
"One woman believes very strongly and provided evidence that the union forged her signature on an authorization card," CWF Executive Director Matt Patterson told InsideSources. "The basic picture this paints, in my view, is that the election was highly suspect, and there was possibly identify theft."
"She is absolutely certain the union forged her signature in order to take money from her," Patterson said. "You wonder how many people this happened to that just never noticed or they just didn't complain about it or whatever. We suspect the number is fairly high because if they did this to one person, it probably wasn't just one person."
This isn't the first time that a public employee union did questionable things. After the DFL legislature passed a forced unionization bill, reports started popping up from in-home child-care providers that the union organizers told them that the cards they were signing weren't cards asking for a unionization vote. The organizers instead said that they were cards saying they wanted more information on the bill.
When the vote finally happened, AFSCME was defeated, losing 1,014-392.
Does this sound like SEIU Healthcare is on the up-and-up?
"At one point they turned over a list that had nothing but names on it," Brown said. " There was no other information at all. It was just names . So we cross referenced that list with the [other] list, and we found they didn't match. And that took place about two weeks before we got the actual supposed real list, which we cross referenced, and it didn't match that list. It was like the state was making up names and throwing them at us."
Finally, there's this:
SEIU Healthcare Minnesota has hit back against the decertification campaign. The union alleged the campaign has coerced members into signing cards to authorize the decertification vote. SEIU organizer Phillip Cryan sent a letter listing 12 members who claimed to have been coerced by the canvassers. Brown notes only two of the names listed were on the membership lists the state provided.
"He sent us a letter stating that our canvassers coerced the PCAs," Brown said. "So I got these ten cards supposedly signed by people where my canvassers went to their door, which is impossible because if we never had their name or address, we just wouldn't do that. If we don't know they're there, we didn't know they existed."
That'd be a nifty trick ... if it was possible, which it isn't. SEIU better hope a full-fledged investigation doesn't get started. If it's launched, SEIU Healthcare Minnesota might be in trouble.
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2017 2:29 PM
No comments.
