Fascination with Shiny Objects

Apart from the angst that the current political divide has created in the personal and public lives of Americans, there is the very real cost of that which is not being accomplished.  Congress fiddles while critical American issues fester.  The basic, fundamental reasons for which we send elected officials to our nation’s capitol are being ignored and growing more serious by the day.  Each election cycle, we select Senators and Representatives and Presidents that promise a new day in WDC; a day that will usher in a different era of bipartisanship and accomplishment.  Freshmen members of the House bring their unbounded energy and excitement to Congress, only to be subdued by the corrupt power structure that has existed in that branch for decades.  The fierce determination of the incoming legislators is crushed beneath the gears and cogs of existing legislative hierarchies that foster group-think and rigidity rather than expansive thought and innovation.  New players like Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez break the mold and experience a burst of new-found excitement and energy; only to have their unconventional attitudes and remarks analyzed to the point of defragmentation. 

Before they cleanse our nation’s capital and government of all the political heretics who foster different and dangerous ideals; before they reinvent the constitution and the basic framework of our governmental model; before they revolutionize the planet and mold it into a nirvana of unicorns, rainbows and lollipops…perhaps our elected representatives in Congress should simply focus on doing the things that we sent them up there to do.

The USMCA.  At a time when the U.S. economy is doing quite well and needs to continue its momentum, we are seeing the global economy showing concerning signs of slowing down and the United States and Mexico and Canada free trade Agreement continue to languish in the House of Representatives.  The fact is that people’s jobs, the American economy (as well as Mexico and Canada), and an added incentive for future free trade negotiations hinge upon this Agreement receiving Congressional approval.  The heavy lifting has been done by the Administration.  Congress, do your job.

The FY2020 Federal Budget.  The Senate tabled Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 budget work pending the outcome of President Trump’s and Speaker Pelosi’s budget talks.  Those talks have been completed for some time now.  FY2019 ends on September 30, 2019.  Our government has no budget for the next fiscal year.  Once again, we will be seeing the use of continuing resolutions and omnibus bills to allow our country to fiscally operate.  There are twelve primary appropriation bills for Congress to annually pass; one…per…month.  Congress, do your job.

Immigration Reform.  DACA, the illegitimate product of the Obama Administration, continues to be administered in legal limbo.  Republican and Democrat Chief Executives alike never seem to understand that the Achilles Heel of the Executive Action is that one President can easily undo what a previous President has accomplished through Executive Action.  As this nation continues to waste time, money, and the very lives of immigrants (both legal and illegal) debating what to do about immigration, nothing is being accomplished.  This Triage through Band Aids approach is a disgrace; especially when it is commonly accepted that the major concerns of our immigration challenges have ready solutions that enjoy bipartisan support.  Congress, do your job.

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

Election Reform.  Historically, nations have attempted to interfere in other nation’s elections.  America has done it and others have done it to America.  Hillary Clinton sought to enable it in her contest with Trump via the Steele dossier.   Putin’s Russia tried to do it to our 2016 presidential election through its sophomoric social media escapades.  The Democrats have wasted over two years trying to prove (unsuccessfully) that Trump was complicit in this Russian mischief; while Obama openly did it to Israel.  The Left rails continually about the injustice of the Electoral College, the disenfranchisement of various voting groups, and the dangers of foreign efforts to impact our elections.  The Republicans rail that any limitation whatsoever of money in politics is an infringement on fundamental free speech rights.  And yet nothing is being done legislatively to address any of these legitimate concerns.  News Flash: Wouldn’t it be better to close the barn door than complain about horses escaping.  Congress, do your job.

The FY2021 Federal Budget.  It is bad enough that we will go into FY20 with no federal budget in place.  It is even worse that the time that should be spent holding hearings, doing research, and making serious spending decisions regarding priorities for FY2021 (the fiscal year that will begin on September 30, 2020) is instead being consumed by figuring out how to pay the bills in what will be the current fiscal year, FY2020.  Common sense SCREAMS for a federal spending plan to be properly authored and approved prior to entering its effective fiscal year.  How can any rational person expect federal departments and agencies to function with any fiscal effectiveness or efficiency when they have no spending plan to operate with?  And people wonder why bureaucracy continues to paralyze our government?  Not only should a federal budget be in place prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, there also should be a two-year federal budget cycle to better improve fiscal operations.  Congress, do your job.

The Federal Budget Deficit.  https://www.concordcoalition.org/budget-decisions?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqIqolqns5AIVmuDICh3WNw0FEAAYBCAAEgLRwfD_BwE

The single issue that continues to garner universal and bipartisan support in WDC is deficit spending by the U.S. government.  It is an unvarnished fact that the failures to honestly acknowledge, discuss, and address this ongoing problem for our country is a stain on the integrity of both national parties.  There is so much fiscal fruit that is well within reach; but will not be touched due to political considerations.  The day will come when there will be a reckoning for the irresponsible accounting practices approved by our Congresses.  The burden that is being passed forward to future generations of Americans is the height of malfeasance and should be a source of embarrassment to our Senators and Representatives.  Congress, do your job.

National Infrastructure.  Before the Resist Trump movement; before the Russian Collusion hoax; before the polarization of our national media and citizenry at large…there was the very real possibility of a bipartisan piece of legislation that would partner federal resources with state and county resources in an effort to address the failing conditions of our national infrastructure.  We are blessed to reside in a nation that is full of beauty, diversity, and literally stunning wonder.  The transportation systems that connect this environment are crumbling before our very eyes and straining the economic capabilities of government at all levels.  For the sake of our very safety, our jobs, and our recreational possibilities, our nation’s infrastructure must be brought up to acceptable standards and maintained in that fashion for future generations.  Congress, do your job.

National Health Care.  As I have written before, there is no need to throw the Obamacare baby out with the bath water.  Politicos on both sides of the aisle need to put their egos aside and address the shortcomings and inequities in our present health care system.  Once again, this is one of those issues where many acres of common ground exist between the national parties and the focus should be on those areas.  It is undeniable that health care in our nation is too expensive.  It is undeniable that too many people go without the basic health care they should be receiving.  It is undeniable that our logic-challenged government has no business trying to micro-manage an industry as expansive as national health care when it is best left to the boundless possibilities of the American free-market system.  Forget the acronyms and the revolutionary ideals; let’s just get the national parties together and begin to inject some common sense and reason into this part of our lives that is draining so much of our economic and political energy.  Congress, do your job.  

Entitlement Reform.  The universal Congressional approach to entitlement reform mirrors its approach to the federal budget deficit.  Kick the can down the road; let the next Congress or President deal with it; the money will never run out and we have needs that must be addressed. The attitude seems to be that…hey, we print the money; why worry?  We should ALL worry because it is the right thing to do.  We should all worry because in a nation that is so very blessed in a material sense, there are far too many hurting from inadequate resources.  We should all worry because just as our parents sacrificed for our futures, so we should sacrifice for the futures of our children.  We should all worry because true compassion is as much about creating opportunity as it is about giving aid.  We should all worry because the due date on our entitlement debts will inevitably arrive.  Congress…please…just do your job.

Buyer’s Remorse and War Poker

This Whisteblower deal with President Trump’s call to the Ukraine is odd in a number of ways.  Time will reveal all mysteries, but on the surface…this appears to be another feeble Democratic/Media attempt to fabricate a Trump scandal.  However, if we choose to peek below the surface a bit, there may be something a bit more Machiavellian going on. 

The Democratic Establishment, much like the Republican Establishment in past elections, had pretty much decided on its best chance to retire Donald Trump.  All things considered, they figured that after beating Trump up with a thousand small and superficial scandal cuts, Joe Biden might look pretty good to the American voter.  His past relationship (awkward as it is) with Obama, his resume of life-long political residency, his good ole boy/aw schucks patina, and his name recognition all combined to give him a rather glowing recommendation as the next Democratic presidential nominee.  I suppose the Democrats simply assumed that he had been around Obama long enough to have gained the One’s gift; the gift of simply ignoring one’s own lies, deceits, and corruption and proceeding as if none of it had ever happened (self-delusion).  Needless to say, that particular skill (or vice) did not rub off on Biden.

Given the apparent weakness of this Whistleblower episode and the likely deep-state origins from which it arose, one would have to believe that the Democratic establishment knew of it well before its public disclosure.  The public announcement timeline associated with Representative Schiff and the usual media suspects indicate that once again, the roll-out of this little political production was choreographed.  But perhaps there is a larger question in play here.  If this accusation against Trump is such thin gruel, why is it being sprung at this particular moment in time?  Could it be planned as a distraction from the imminent release of IG Horowitz’s report and all its damning potential for Democrats?  Could it simply be the next in a line (following bogus obstruction) of political accusations being hurled at Trump in order to keep him on the defensive and provide him ample opportunity to self-implode?  Could it be a preliminary strike by the Clinton Camp in anticipation of further legal action against their possible legal transgressions surrounding her questionable tenure as Secretary of State?  Could it be Biden’s attempt (similar to Warren’s apology to the Indian Nation) at damage control for the inevitable discussion of his and his son’s Ukraine past business dealings?  It could be none, any, or all of these motivations that is driving the sudden emergence of this little dust-up.  Or, it just might be the case that the Democratic Establishment is having some second thoughts, some buyer’s remorse, about placing all of their chips on a Biden for President 2020 effort.  It could be that they are finally realizing that old Slow Joe is not quite at the top of his game any longer; that his game was never really that sharp anyway; and they may have made a colossal error in assuming he would look really attractive in comparison to President Trump.  Without Biden’s acquiescence to self-withdrawing from the nomination race, the Democratic leadership was pretty much stuck with their poor bet.  Might it be the case that the false indignation surrounding Trump’s Ukraine phone call was simply a straw man used as an excuse to resurrect the Joe and Beau Biden Ukraine business dealings?  Are we watching the Democrats sabotage their own chosen political savior?  Time will tell; but this would indeed be a cold and ruthless method of retracting a poor wager and throwing open the field once again.

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

Several posts back, I wrote a piece entitled http://centerlineright.blogspot.com/2019/01/trump-takes-road-less-traveled.html .  In that post, I celebrated President Trump’s non-interventionist tendencies in foreign policy; specifically in the military sense.  The recent debate surrounding the alleged Iranian-sponsored attack on the Saudi oil facilities has once again highlighted this aspect of Trump’s international inclinations.  As I did before, I once again applaud Trump’s refusal to orchestrate a knee-jerk military response to this blatant act of aggression against Saudi Arabia.  Although (based on media reports) American intelligence seems assured that Iran was the source of these attacks; the U.S. response has been deliberate and thoughtful.  Accepting the fact that this could change at any moment, I find it absolutely refreshing that President Trump is not inflaming the situation with his usual rhetorical bombasts and is instead proceeding to build a case with our allies and the United Nations to determine an appropriate response.  This is the second situation of this type that the President has faced and his instincts are promising.

There can be no doubt that in this particular game of global military poker, the United States holds the top cards and the most powerful hand.  Given the absolute futility that the Middle East has visited upon past presidential administrations from both political parties, it is astoundingly reassuring to see one that is taking a slow and cautious approach to this recent dilemma.  The past military bluster that has occurred (oftentimes with the best of intentions) regarding the Middle East has tallied a monstrous expense of human misery, international political intrigue, and an overall poor perception of our nation and its noble efforts to establish peace and dignity in the region.  When you hold the best hand at the table, there is no need for haste.  There is no need for bluff or bluster.  There is no need to poke or prod the other players.  And certainly (I sure hope Trump can remain cognizant of this), there is no need to escalate inflammatory rhetoric.  Patience exhibited through recognized strength is the most powerful military weapon America currently possesses. 

If the application of military action becomes a necessary step in this process, so be it.  But let us arrive at that conclusion in a thoughtful and pragmatic fashion; taking into full account the risks and human costs associated with such behavior.  Many of the political analysts in the media are stating that a kinetic military response to this unprovoked attack on the world’s energy reserves is essential to maintaining the global economy and tamping down the rogue terrorists in the Middle East.  They might be correct and, if so, then that response will be delivered.  All we can ask is that if delivered, it be a well-conceived and decisive operation commensurate with its provocation and is sufficiently adequate to effectively limit its repeated use in the future. 

Journalistic Sloppiness vs. Journalistic Deceit…And a Bonus

Although the mainstream media (the leading print entities and the vast majority of network and cable news and opinion entities) has been moving to the left since the premier candidacy of Obama, they have now crossed the Rubicon of journalistic idiocy.  I suppose it took Donald Trump to push them to this end; but it is equally possible that they always harbored the ambition to cast journalistic ethics aside in quest of their personal agendas and President Trump simply offered them an opportunity to openly do just that. 

Regardless of motivation, we now stand at a point where historically significant news organizations have shamelessly cast aside all pretense of objectivity and consciously combined their editorial sentiments with their news content.  As the quote commonly credited to George Orwell goes…Propaganda is as much about what is left out, as of what is actually said.  The recent controversy surrounding the New York Times (NYT) coverage of SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh is a perfect example of this warning.  I have watched some discussions of this issue by parties on both sides of the argument and I fear that many of the comments are missing the main point.  There is significant blowback from the right and the left on the NYT’s coverage of accusations against Justice Kavanaugh.  The facts are that two NYT employees wrote a book about sexual misconduct accusations against Kavanaugh.  Books are a commercial venture and it is clearly a choice of the consumer to buy a certain book or not.  As long as you abide by the libel laws, you can craft a book’s content in any fashion you choose.  But the NYT then took those two authors and published an article in their newspaper based on that book’s content.  The NYT article clearly cherry-picked the book (which had also cherry-picked content) for information that bolstered the accusations of alleged victims and clouded the integrity of the accused. 

In response to this ethical lapse in judgment, the NYT and the authors of both the book and the article are now in a finger-pointing exercise of blaming everyone but themselves for the so-called mistakes that have been exposed.  This is where I believe there is a dangerous case of misdirection taking place.  The NYT has a long and, up until a few years ago, distinguished career of reliable and leading newspaper content.  Until it sold its soul to the Resist Trump Devil, it was widely referred to as the newspaper of record.  My point is this: When those involved in this despicable and political journalistic sabotage claim that irresponsible NYT operations in the edit department are the reason for the ridiculous content we have seen in its pages, they are being disingenuous.  After decades of industry-leading operations, the NYT has not suddenly forgotten how to edit articles submitted by their reporters for print.  There has been no failure in the review processes surrounding the NYT news and opinion content.  The investigative resources of the NYT rivals those of any entity involved in national and international news reporting.  The NYT knows exactly what it is printing, it accurately reflects the partisan agenda of that newspaper, and to blame its shameful and false content on sloppy operational practices is simply pathetic.  If you are going to print this garbage, at least have sufficient integrity to stand behind it.

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

It is sickening to accept the fact that biased news reporting in this nation has been unleashed by the reality of our country’s partisan divide.  We have arrived at a point where both Left and Right news sources have a sufficient following blindly drinking their political kool-aid as to allow them to pander to their faithful consumers and simply ignore or denigrate those with an opposing view.  For the first few years of the Obama administration, the mainstream media began their news slanting activities under the cover of the news versus editorial premises.  They claimed it was their right…yea, their absolute obligation…to report the news as they see it.  Then the pro-media agenda coverage begin to migrate disproportionately to above the fold or the top of the monitor screen, while the anti-media agenda coverage fell either below the fold or off the screen entirely.  Once that was a fait accompli, it was relatively simple for them to begin the blending of editorial content with news content.  Thus was the birth of what we now refer to as …fake news.  Openly accepting it as fact, the partisans on each side of the aisle are daily nourished by the news sources with the news they want to hear.  They self-validate their own inclinations by listening or reading only those media sources that confirm those personal beliefs; and they have no problem at all finding such sources.  Is it any wonder that there is a hard percentage (35-40 percent?) of the nation that will vote either Republican or Democrat regardless of the facts surrounding policy and/or candidate quality? 

Our country is starving for an independent news source that will present the news in a factual and non-partisan fashion.  Common folks that are not hard-core partisans have reached the point where, at times, they switch the channel from Fox or CNN because they can no longer tolerate the partisan cheerleading.  The NYT and the Washington Examiner each contain some semblance of non-partisan content; but they essentially counter each other in a broader sense of overall political slant.  There are some efforts online and on cable to create an independent, non-partisan news outlet.  But until those efforts become sufficiently attractive to gain some viewers and until the quasi-partisans get so fed up with their partisan news sources that they are ready to jump ship, it is going to be very difficult for these new outlets to survive.  For the time being, the best we can do to try and get an unvarnished view of the reality that is America is to accept personal responsibility for ourselves and view not only the most objective news outlets we can find; but to also view or read the partisan content from both sides of the political spectrum.  Young people especially take heed…the good Lord gave you a brain, but he left it up to you to use it. 

As a bonus to today’s post, I submit for your reading pleasure some more quotations from my favorite Brit, George Orwell.

In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.

The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection.

Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.

On the whole human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.

Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.

To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.

If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.

This man sounds more like an American patriot than a Brit, doesn’t he?  Here are three of my favorites:

A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane.

I really like that last one.  We should all beware of that seductive siren that goes by the name of Certitude.  Now ask yourselves this question: How many of the principles addressed by the previous quotations are in play today, in nearly every aspect of our daily lives; especially when considering today’s post topic?

CenterlineRight Buffett

In the last couple of weeks, nothing much has floated to the top of the boiling pot that is life in these United States.  Oh there have been lots of headlines, but nothing that has galvanized the interest of this particular observer.  Therefore, this piece will today be dedicated to a smorgasbord of topics.

One of the subjects that is often mentioned when discussing the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the “Chevron” principle.  Put simply, this issue deals with the discretionary authority of federal agencies when administering the laws passed by the Executive and the Legislative branches of our government.  Here is an excellent article dealing with Chevron questions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference .  In my thirty-some years of working as a federal office manager, I had first-hand experience with the consequences, both intended and unintended, of how much influence federal departments and agencies have on exactly how properly legislated laws impact American citizens.  The inherent wisdom, fairness, and logic that might be in a law is only as valid as the governmental department, agency, or civil servant that administers that law.  Much as we see the federal Judiciary being perverted by rogue federal judges who allow their personal opinions to override proper constitutional considerations when rendering judgments, so there are rogue federal civil servants who are large and in charge of actually implementing federal laws and regulations.    If Congress does a good job of defining exactly what a law is and how that law should be administered, the objective assessment of the delivery by civil servants is a relatively simple task.  Unfortunately, much of the legislation that is passed today is heavy on principle and short on particulars.  This leaves ample opportunity, or sometimes the necessity, for civil service managers to fill in the blanks and thus heavily influence the impact of the law being delivered.  Much, if not most, of the time, these fill in the blank people are political appointees. Even assuming the best of intentions, it is impossible for civil servants to know what was in the mind of Senators and Representatives when they composed a law.  The best they can do in good faith to accomplish the perceived intent of legislation is often lacking.  But far worse than that is when a partisan or biased civil servant seizes the opportunity to bend a piece of legislation towards their own vision.  On occasion, this can result in the practical effect of the law being 180 degrees opposite of the legislation’s clear intent.  This is what Chevron is largely about.  How much influence should a federal department or agency have in the actual content of legislation?  When a legal dispute arises from the administration of a law and it proceeds to the Judiciary, how much weight is assigned to the authors (Congress) and much weight is assigned to the administrators (federal departments/agencies)?  We as voters must be ever vigilant in the selection of quality people to represent us in Congress so that good laws are passed with clear intent and specific administrative instructions.  Our Executive branch should be equally vigilant in selecting quality people to serve in federal departments and agencies; people who perform their duties based on their job descriptions and do not have personal agendas regarding their assigned missions. 

Fox News has recently presented an in-depth interview with SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch.  Political leanings aside, anyone should find this interview fascinating as an inside perspective to how the chief constitutional arbiter in our nation functions.  The interview is available on the Fox News website or can be accessed with a search engine.  The two points that resonant with me about the interview are the Gorsuch pleas for civility in our culture/society and his call for re-emphasis of civics education in our educational system.  I won’t waste time pleading for civility; anyone who is paying attention at all understands that civility in our country is conspicuous simply because of its absence.  Civility needs to begin in the White House, morph over to Congress, infect the Judiciary, and permeate our population.  Enough said about that.  As Justice Gorsuch poses … How can our youth practice good citizenship if they do not understand civics?  How can criticism, however well intended, be legitimate if the one criticizing has no basic concept of what is being criticized?  Our votes determine the quality of our government.  Put another and more painfully direct way…we deserve the government we get.  Well taught and non-partisan civics should be part and parcel of every basic K thru 12 curriculum in this country.  These children and young adults are the ones who will not only choose our future leaders; they ARE our future leaders.  Should they not implicitly understand the fundamental basis of our nation and how it was designed to work?

Based on what you see, hear, and read…how do you think the economy is doing?  One’s perception of American economic performance is a very personal thing; it is tied directly to your own economic health.  But there are objective and universal standards for evaluating our nation’s economic activity.  Here is an interesting article on the subject: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/median-income-hit-record-high-in-2018-while-poverty-declined .  For me, the key to a healthy society is a decent job for every person able to work, a sufficiently-healthy economy that provides upward mobility for those who exhibit the ambition and drive to better themselves and their families, and federal policies that place incentives on actually producing product as opposed to rewarding successful speculation.  A paycheck provides pride, dignity, and a pathway to self-sufficiency that is the right of every American.  But it is up to every American to seize that opportunity when it presents itself.  This approach does not in any way contradict the fact that our nation and government must be compassionate and responsible in how it supports those who deal with economic challenges beyond their control.  But rather than get lost and dizzy in the swirl of technical metrics for how our economy is doing, I like to look at worker participation; showing how many able-bodied people are actually working and drawing a paycheck.  I like to see a reasonable increase in annual wages that, at minimum, keeps workers even with inflation and, at best, rewards many workers for their performance with wage advancement.  Without putting a number on it, interest rates should be low enough to allow middle class workers to afford to borrow for major purchases and acquire an affordable mortgage.  But they should also be substantial enough to reward those who have been thrifty during their working lives, saved money for their later years, and rely on some amount of interest as a reward for their sacrifices.  The national debate over the health of the U.S. economy is going to be a pretty hot topic between now and November of 2020; use your own common sense to find a proper bearing on this question and don’t get lost in the flood of agenda-based statistics that will be hurled at you.

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

I have written before about the arrogance and conceit demonstrated by some U.S. Representatives when assessing their own political relevance compared to that of the President.  Whether we like it or not, it is significant to consider how large an area or how many people are responsible for electing a particular politician to office.  It matters that a President is elected by all of the American voters, while a Representative is elected by a county or handful of counties, while a Senator is elected by an entire State, while patronage appointees are not elected at all and serve at the pleasure of their appointing official.  The vision of our nation’s founders was that legislation would begin in the House and then pass over to the Senate for consideration.  The House would be the residence of our citizen legislators; where they would leave their work, go to WDC for a term or two, reflect the real life experience of themselves and their peers in their product, and then return to civilian life.  The President would function essentially as the Chief Executive Office (CEO) and administer the will of Congress, all under the auspices of the Judicial branch.  There is legitimate debate on how well the original prescriptions of our three co-equal branches of government serve our nation today considering the evolution of our culture and society.  One of those issues concerns the numerical size of the House of Representatives; specifically posing the question as to whether or not the size of the House should be increased.  For a revealing insight into one of the two Legislative branches of our government, read this article about the composition of current House districts: http://statchatva.org/2017/11/15/u-s-house-districts-are-colossal-whats-the-right-size/ .

And finally, here is the report submitted by the Department of Justice Inspector General regarding the former FBI Director James Comey.  This is not the House version, or the Senate Version, or the Republican version, or the Democrat version, or the Left version, or the Right version; it is the actual, factual report from the non-partisan Inspector General.  The report: https://www.scribd.com/document/423671596/Doj-Ig-Comey#from_embed .  This is what happens when civil servants go rogue, put themselves above the law, and allow their own agendas to supersede their job descriptions and oaths of office.  This is why laws like FISA are dubious in their wisdom.  As stated earlier in this post, our government is only as honorable and ethical as the people who serve in that government.  It is a given that each national party will, upon selected occasions, seek to utilize the governmental apparatus for their own personal agendas in the furtherance of their own power and authority.  THIS is why we, as American citizens, should be very reluctant when we cede our personal liberties to government.  The case of Comey and the Russian Collusion hoax is a classic case of governmental abuse rising so high up the food chain that nobody was watching the Watchers.  It is a fact: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

Donald Trump: The Maginot Line between our Constitution and Liberal Maelstrom

History tells us that the Maginot Line was a French defense strategy employed in WWII that ultimately failed.  This line of defense that stretched across Europe was magnificent in most of its construction; likely overbuilt in most sections.  Its failure resulted from its one weak link, a passage through the rough terrain of the Ardennes Forest that was both discounted by the French military leaders and exploited by the Germans.  The episode of the Maginot Line lends credence to the words of Thomas Reid, who wrote in 1786:  In every chain of reasoning, the evidence of the last conclusion can be no greater than that of the weakest link of the chain, whatever may be the strength of the rest.  Put in simple terms …we are only as strong as our weakest link.

The nation conceived and established by our forefathers through the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, is under attack.  The attack is ferocious, unrelenting, and is coming from various directions.  One arm of the attack implies that the authors of the Constitution really did not mean what they wrote; that their words did not adequately define what they were thinking.  Absurd on its face, this attack is struck down by the obvious and diversified intelligence that formulated the Constitution and the clarity of the concise language it employs.

Another, and far more serious, attack is coming from the direction of those who promote the theory that the Constitution is a living and breathing document that must evolve with the society and culture of our nation.  But how this evolution should take place is the pertinent question.  This particular opinion sets forth the premise that while the words of the Constitution may not change; the interpretation of what those words mean does change over time.  They claim that the same words have different meaning today than they did at the time of its writing.  Words do have meanings and the Constitution is pretty clear.  If people want to change the substance of the Constitution; there are avenues to accomplish that within its very content.  Our master plan for this country does not function by how we read the words in it; it functions based on the words it contains. 

This approach cannot be dismissed out of hand due to the fact that (a) there are provisions for amending the Constitution and (b) the Constitution has in fact been amended 27 times (the first 10 being the Bill of Rights).  But when one considers both the content of past amendments and the process of their passage; it is clear that our founders intended for the act of amending the original document to be both infrequent and based on issues of fundamental constitutional importance.  I think it is somewhat revealing that Prohibition was both implemented and repealed in our nation by two separate ratified amendments (the 18^th and 21^st).  When it comes to drinking and alcohol, our government can get its ish together in short order.  The term fundamental constitutional importance may be subject to interpretation; but the established process of amending our Constitution is clearly not.

The first method of amendment is the Constitutional Convention; a collection of legislative representatives from all states which has never been used.  This convention, theoretically, would be called through a 2/3 majority vote of support from the separate state legislatures in order to convene.  Any amendment that passed this Convention with a 3/4 majority would then be considered ratified.  The second, and historical, avenue of constitutional amending has been the passage of the proposed amendment by both houses of Congress with a 2/3 majority in each house.  The amendment must then garner support from 3/4 of our nation’s state legislatures in order to be ratified.  Some amendments have included deadlines and some have not.  The 27^th amendment was proposed in 1789 with no deadline and was ratified in 1992.  On the other hand, the Equal Rights Amendment was proposed in 1992 and had only acquired approval by 34 of the required 38 states by its congressionally-mandated deadline.  It failed to be ratified.

My point is that the framers of our nation, living in a much simpler time with far fewer people involved in the process, set forth a complex method of constitutional amending that would clearly require the proposed changes to reflect an overwhelming (super) majority of the American people.  They did not employ the rules of the House; which does business mainly on the basis of a simple majority.  They did not employ the rules of the Senate; which mainly (for how much longer is open to debate) does business by requiring a 2/3 majority.  They further required that 3/4 of the states must approve the amendment to achieve ratification.  Now ask yourself and be honest…Can you imagine a single topic that could achieve this level of agreement in the government that we have today? 

Some may argue that the amendment ratification process never envisioned the burgeoning and diverse nation that we are today and that the ratification hurdles are overly-onerous.  They might say that fundamental changes to the Constitution should be easier to ratify and should better reflect the opinions of government leaders (catch that now…the leaders, not the people) that are in office today.  Others (myself included) take the position that the framers knew exactly what they were writing, why they were writing it that way, and were confident that it would effectively lead their glorious experiment in liberty and freedom to success; which it has done for well over 200 years.  I seriously question whether any of the constitutional critics making the rounds today are on an intellectual and common sense level with James Madison and his bunch.

Many people on the far Left in this country are not content with the Constitution in its current form.  Given a free hand, they would probably use it as a foundation document to amend, revise, and rewrite to their satisfaction.  They would likely attempt to insert many new fundamental rights that are not necessarily endorsed by 3/4 of American citizens.  They would likely attempt to remove many existing fundamental rights that might very well be endorsed by 3/4 of American citizens.  To put it simply, they would enthusiastically attempt to implement fundamental changes to the principles upon which our nation was created and upon which it has operated for over 200 years.  They would not hold a constitutional convention to gauge the opinions of the masses.  They would not conduct ballot initiatives to test the support for their proposals.  What they would do is implement these changes based on what they think is best for you and your family; not what the clear majority of the people desire.  They would accomplish these changes in whatever fashion was necessary.  To the far Left, the ends justify the means.

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

For clarification, I will draw a distinction between a liberal (small L) and a Liberal (capital L).  The Liberals I am referring to are the ones who refute the basis upon which this nation was built.  The ones who want to reshape the country in the image they envision; regardless of what those with different opinions may say.  I am talking about the people who romanticize the European models of globalist idealism.  I am talking about the ones who demonize their opponents and will justify any strategy that helps to enable their agenda.  There is certainly a place, a necessary place, in our nation for those with differing opinions and ideals as compared to conservatives.  In a perfect world, the machinery of democracy would be operated by those who reside within a reasonable distance either side of the political center.  But just as Republicans should condemn and refuse to support the excesses of President Trump and far right Conservatives; so should Democrats condemn and refuse to support the excesses of the Liberals who have seized effective control of their Party.  The hard truth is that if you not about the solution and remain silent, then you are part of the problem.

The firewall that stands between this form of constitutional revision and the government as it currently exists is supposedly centered in the presence of the Supreme Court.  The framers envisioned that the laws would be formulated by the people’s house, the House of Representatives (2-year terms).  The hot tea served up by the House would then go to the Senate (6-year terms) to cool in their saucer and to be reflected upon; ultimately leading to a compromise agreement between the two houses.  Having achieved passage by Congress, the legislation would then go to the President for his consideration.  His approval would make it law; his veto would send the law back to Congress for a potential override by a 2/3 majority required from both houses.  Once the law has acquired approval from both the Congress and the President (the Executive and Legislative branches of our nation), the constitutional validity of its content and administrative implementation protocols fall under the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch of government; the Supreme Court being the highest authority in that branch.  The framers conceived that this creation of checks and balances, spread among the three branches of government, would insure that the will of the people (the clear majority of the people) would be upheld when operating within the confines of the Constitution.  I think it is fair to say that as wise as they were, the framers did not anticipate the excessive political venom that has been injected into our nation and the degree to which each of the three branches might exceed, or fail to perform, their responsibilities and authorities. 

As badly as we have abused the vision set forth by our founders, the enduring strength of our nation has been and remains the Constitution itself.  It is why this nation was founded and what this nation represents.  It should be our guiding light in times of darkness and strife.  Given the opportunity of a majority status in both houses of Congress along with an ally in the White House, the extreme Liberal community in this nation would no doubt attempt to render the current Constitution unrecognizable and/or irrelevant.  They would do this through legislative authority enhanced by a nuclear option on Senate majority rules, through continuing empowerment of rogue federal judges throughout the nation, through wide-ranging and frequent Executive actions, and with the implicit and bald-faced support of the mainstream media in this country.  The only remaining firewall that would remain under these circumstances would be the Supreme Court.  That Court now has an even divide between liberals and conservatives with Chief Justice Roberts being the deciding vote.  Although he typically bends to the right, his actions belie any solid confidence that he would be a reliable bulwark to the Liberal assault I have described. 

We as a people do not vote with our heads and we don’t necessarily vote with our hearts either.  I do not pretend to understand why people vote as they do; but I know that they do so in both a very personal and unpredictable way.  Donald Trump ascending to the White House is the perfect example of this.  Our nation reflects the well-conceived and glorious success of the framers’ ideals in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Their governmental formula has passed the test of numerous and monumental struggles throughout its brief existence and has proven time and again the wisdom in its founders words…our Constitution.  But if the current partisan zeal that we are witnessing today is paired with a Liberal legislative and White House victory in this upcoming national election; the strength of our nation and its adherence to this fundamental blueprint will be tested as never before.  Could it withstand such a challenge?  With a Liberal Executive and Legislative majority in hand, would a Supreme Court majority be far behind?  Might they even consider restructuring the Supreme Court in order to achieve their goals?

Donald Trump might just be the Maginot Line that stands between what we have today and what I have described above; that being a more Liberal nation that relies on a more compassionate and socially-reflective Constitution.  This Liberal leadership would declare the Constitution a governmental blueprint that reads one way today and another way tomorrow; depending on their agenda du jour.  Just like the Maginot Line, President Trump is certainly an imperfect scheme of defense; an individual clearly sufficient in some areas and seriously lacking in others.  And regardless of your assessment about Trump’s adequacy as President; there is little doubt that his political enemies are carefully analyzing his weaknesses for the opportunity of future exploitation. 

The Maginot Line was breached and France still stands today.  Perhaps I am being over-imaginative in my predictions of exactly what a Liberal majority in American government might lead to.  I have no intention of comparing the Liberal Left to Nazi Germany; my comparison is on the episode, not the players.  But all voters, Republicans in particular, should seriously think about the choices that lie before them.  Instead of celebrating their strengths and advantages with bravado and a false sense of security; the Republican Party and Donald Trump had better be re-examining their vulnerabilities and shoring up their weaknesses.  The next President will likely determine the idealistic tilt of the Supreme Court by their future appointments.  Those appointments will rise or fall in the halls of the Senate.  It is a regrettable thing to say…but once your Senator or Representative packs their bags and heads to WDC; they will be representing themselves, not you.  We had better be picking good people to represent us.  Good people who will honor our Constitution and respect its content and origin.  I for one anticipate with dread the ultimate test to our Constitution.