https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This past Friday, Kim Strassel wrote an op ed about identity politics. I did not post the article but I agree that it is one of the main reasons Democrats continue to paddle down the wrong stream
My liberal friends constantly try to hang the Trump persona albatross around my neck because they cannot discuss the success of his policies and what he has accomplished, against the most difficult of odds.
I have never endorsed Trump as a role model president. His style is unorthodox, his career as a playboy is well known and his vulgarity is a weak spot but his practical approach toward addressing problems and what to do about solving them has proven the correct prescription in most instances. His foreign policy moves may also be unorthodox but America benefits because our adversaries, even our allies, are kept wondering and that has proven mostly advantageous.
Why in heavens should Trump allow a known terrorist to roam the world uncontested is beyond me.
The Trump Haters are blinded and therefore, unable to recognize how he has positively impacted America's ability to right the trade ship, how he has rebuilt our military, helped workers recapture/experience the dignity attached to jobs and how his policies have helped many to leave dependency.
Yes, his administration continues to run deficits but he is held hostage by Democrats who control The House and who demand matching welfare dollars. This is just another reason why Trump's next four years, if re-elected, could be a boon if accompanied by recapturing The House.
Each president brings his own style to The Oval Office and some leave an indelible mark. I suspect Trump has altered the future for succeeding presidents as did Obama and Clinton.
I continue to counsel separation of the man and his policies but liberals cannot bring themselves to do so. They would rather continue to plant seeds of identity politics which continue to lead to self-destructive and exclusionary politics and though that is a zero sum game they have every right to play it if they so choose and to pay the consequences.
And:
The Democrats are now frantic and looking for any hammer to nail Trump.
Were Christ alive today the radical Democrats would be nailing him to another cross. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Finally:
Pelosi wants more witnesses but she runs the risk of getting them and this would allow Republicans a comparable opportunity and that means witnesses who Democrats want to avoid.
Consequently, this could result in a pro-longed Senate Impeachment circus which would probably end by creating a further boomerang backlash effect for Petulant Pelosi and could run past Trump's re-election.
Be careful what you wish for - you might get it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I recently had an interesting conversation with a dear physician friend about the impact of medical breakthroughs and their high therapeutic costs which is why the move toward government control of health care could be inevitable.
Because of technology, we are on the thresh-hold of making breakthrough discoveries leading to solving many medical maladies that have been beyond reach. Cancer, heart disease and other more rarefied diseases can now be addressed by previously illusive solutions but at enormous costs. One of the most expensive therapies is the ability to resolve hemophilia. The number of those who suffer from this disease is not significant but the cost of the developed solution is "awesome." Health insurance entities cannot ignore the demand nor bear the sustained cost and thus , over time, this and other such therapies will be left to government to fund and, in turn, government will do so by justifying total control over our health care.
Ironically, the cost of the solutions, now within our grasp, could produce several debilitating negatives:
a) Total government control.
b) Consequently, a decline in quality of care, and
c) The potential of a decline in medical research and technology breakthroughs.
In the past successful manufacturing technology led to reductions in unit costs and improved GDP.
Sustaining life for someone who is at an advanced stage of life may produce psychological and health benefits but does not contribute much to GDP.
Perversely, fighting wars with robots may not only reduce costs but also might be more humane while the discovery of health care solutions may come at unbearable costs.
Just something to ponder.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is possible for those from opposite poles to come together. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our granddaughter, Dagny, raised money when the hurricane hit Puerto Rico and now she is raising money for Australia. Dagny, is also a good role model for her brother , Blake.
She discussed the issue with her mother and father and decided it was the right thing to do. We are proud of Dagny and know she will become a good citizen and a caring intelligent conservative. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Trump, Obama and the Spending Power
The White House didn’t commit a crime in delaying aid to Ukraine.
The Editorial Board
Does anyone remember Democrats or Republicans calling for President Obama’s impeachment after a federal court reproached his Administration for lawlessly spending money? We didn’t think so, but now Democrats are flogging a new report by the Government Accountability Office claiming that President Trump broke the law by briefly delaying military aid to Ukraine last summer. The agency’s legal conclusion is wrong, but the double standard is worse.
“This important ruling further strengthens the House’s case for impeachment and removal, and reinforces the need for a fair trial in the Senate that includes documents and witnesses,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared following Thursday’s release of the report. The impeachment press is citing the report as if it were a revelation from the Oracle of Delphi.The GAO is a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, and its legal opinions aren’t binding on the executive branch. While the agency usually tries to avoid appearing partisan, its analysis that the Trump Administration violated the law reads like a brief from the Center for American Progress.
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” GAO General Counsel Thomas Armstrong declares, adding that the Administration’s “reluctance to provide a fulsome response” to the GAO has
To rewind the tape, the Office of Management and Budget last summer put a hold on $250 million in Pentagon funds that Congress had appropriated in 2018 for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Congress made the money available through the end of the fiscal year on September 30, but OMB enjoys discretion over when to let funds flow.
OMB in July and August put a hold on the money putatively “to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds.” As we know, the President wanted to withhold the aid as leverage on Ukraine. But his advisers and GOP Senators such as Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson and Ohio’s Rob Portman objected, the flap became a national news story, and OMB released the funds on September 12.
GAO now marches onto the political battlefield to shoot the wounded. It claims the White House violated the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits the President from unilaterally deferring or rescinding money that has been appropriated by Congress. But no spending was deferred. The money was spent in the fiscal year of the Congressional appropriation, and OMB says the Pentagon didn’t intend to obligate most of it until September anyway.
There was thus no derogation of Congress’s power of the purse. By contrast, consider the Obama Administration’s decision to pay subsidies to health insurers in 2014 that weren’t appropriated by Congress. The GOP House sued to vindicate its spending power, and a federal judge ruled against the Obama Administration. But the money couldn’t be clawed back.
In a separate case, GAO concluded the Obama Health and Human Services Department in 2016 illegally paid money to insurers that the Affordable Care Act required to be sent to Treasury. The issue was politically charged at the time, but the GAO opinion made no mention of the Constitution: “We conclude that HHS lacks authority to ignore the statute’s directive.” The Obama Administration said it disagreed, and the press yawned.
GAO has enjoyed respect from both sides of the aisle, but it will undermine its credibility if it joins the anti-Trump resistance.
1a) Trump Had Right to Withhold Ukraine Funds: GAO is Wrong
1a) Trump Had Right to Withhold Ukraine Funds: GAO is Wrong
The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy... It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president. (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Wikipedia Commons)
|
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has gotten the constitutional law exactly backwards. It said that the "faithful execution of the law" — the Impoundment Control Act—"does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those congress has enacted into law ." Yes, it does — when it comes to foreign policy. The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.
To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.
Consider the following hypothetical situation: Congress allocates funds to Cuba (or Iran or Venezuela). The president says that is inconsistent with his foreign policy and refuses to release the funds. Surely the president would be within his constitutional authority. Or consider the actual situation that former President Barack Obama created when he unilaterally made the Iran deal and sent that enemy of America billions of dollars without congressional approval. I do not recall the GAO complaining about that presidential decision, despite the reality that the Iran deal was, in effect, a treaty that should require senate approval that was never given.
Whatever one may think about the substantive merits of what President Donald Trump did or did not do with regard to the Ukrainian money— which was eventually sent without strings —he certainly had the authority to delay sending the funds. The GAO was simply wrong in alleging that he violated the law, which includes the Constitution, by doing so.
To be sure, the statute requires notification to Congress, but if such notification significantly delays the president from implementing his foreign policy at a time of his choice, that too would raise serious constitutional issues.
Why then would a nonpartisan agency get it so wrong as a matter of constitutional law. There are two obvious answers: first, in the age of Trump there is no such thing as nonpartisan. The political world is largely divided into people who hate and people who love President Trump. This is as true of long term civil servants as it is of partisan politicians. We have seen this with regard to the FBI, the CIA, the Fed and other government agencies that are supposed to be nonpartisan. There are of course exceptions such as the inspector general of the Department of Justice who seems genuinely non-partisan. But most civil servants share the nationwide trend of picking sides. The GAO does not seem immune to this divisiveness.
Second, even if the GAO were non-partisan in the sense of preferring one political party over the other, it is partial to Congress over the president. The GAO is a congressional body. It is part of the legislative, not executive, branch. As such, it favors congressional prerogatives over executive power. It is not surprising therefore that it would elevate the authority of Congress to enact legislation over that of the president to conduct foreign policy.
In any event, even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not— the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents. Those alleged violations were barely noted by the media. But in the hyper-partisan impeachment atmosphere, this report received breathless "breaking news" coverage and a demand for inclusion among the articles of impeachment.
If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law. But let us not continue to water down the constitutional criteria for impeachment by including highly questionable, and on my view wrongheaded, views about violations of an unconstitutional civil law.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the book, Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo, Skyhorse Publishing, November 2019. He is a Distinguished Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) How two politicians from opposite sides fixed their State together
By Salena Zito
HARRISBURG, Pa. — On paper, Rep. Sheryl Delozier, a Republican from a predominantly white conservative district, and Rep. Jordan Harris, a Democrat from a predominantly black Philadelphia district, would be considered an unlikely alignment. If they sat on a cable-news panel they’d be expected to yell and point fingers at each other over partisan slights. On social media, the idea of them being friends would be considered an abomination worthy of canceling them both.
But since 2018, they have been working together on criminal-justice reform — and making real change happen.
Two days before Christmas, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted an overwhelming 193-4 to pass a bill they both sponsored, helping former convicts get professional licenses. As a result, those who took job training in prison for professions like cosmetology, nursing, funeral services or accounting can now get credentials once they’re released, on a restricted basis. (Republicans hold a 17-seat majority in the House of Representatives.)
Both Delozier and Harris say they were attracted to the issue because of mass incarcerat
ion’s devastating impact on their very different communities. “Criminal-justice reform is not a Republican or a Democrat issue,” said Delozier flatly.
Click here for the full story.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
3)
Dagny has asked me to help her do another lemonade stand, this time to raise funds assisting with the wildlife and people due to the wildfires in Australia. Last time she did this in 2017, she raised almost $2,500 for Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria wreaked havoc on the island. Please donate below or stop by our lemonade stand on February 1 from 11am - 1pm. Please message me for the location of the Lemonade stand. Thank you all for the support!
Dagny has asked me to help her do another lemonade stand, this time to raise funds assisting with the wildlife a...(tharr be more)Continue further down this 'ere scroll
$140 raised of $5,000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment