TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Decentralizing the Federal Workforce
Arnold Ahlert  
.
Bureaucrats’ Hurt Feelings On 
Foreign Policy Don’t Justify Impeachment 
By Adam Mill
{ thefederalist.com } ~ In recent testimony during his confirmation hearing, the nominee to be U.S. ambassador to Russia said, “Soliciting investigations into a domestic political opponent... I don’t think that would be in accord with our values.” Never? Let’s do a quick thought experiment. Remember when Donald Trump said he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and still maintain his support? Suppose a candidate for office did shoot somebody and the only witness was a Russian national who then hopped a plane back to Moscow. Now suppose that the only way to prosecute this candidate would be for his political rival the incumbent president to request cooperation from Russia to extradite this material witness back to the United States to participate in a trial. Should he do it? Obviously, in today’s climate, the answer depends on one critical fact: Whose side is the candidate on? If the candidate aligns with the left, then investigating a political opponent would be totally beyond the norms established by our cherished traditions. But if the candidate opposes the left, then the deep state will step in “to protect  the country from that menace.” You see, it’s perfectly fine for scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton to use her campaign funds to hire foreign national Christopher Steele to investigate Trump using probably made-up Russian sources. And there’s nothing wrong with the FBI using those partisan Steele smears to investigate the scumbag/liar-nObama administration’s political opponent. Crossfire Hurricane, the official operational title for the investigation, employed assistance from the British government and an Australian diplomat. So the left believes there’s nothing wrong with asking a foreign government for help to investigate a domestic political opponent — so long as that opponent is Trump. After all, “Nobody is above the law, not even Donald Trump.” But if the shoe ends up on the other foot and Trump is the one investigating, it’s a constitutional crisis!...   https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/bureaucrats-hurt-feelings-on-f...   
Jim Jordan -vs- Maria Bartiromo
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ Representative Jim Jordan discusses the current status of the Democrat impeachment plan with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo... Mr. Jordan breaks down the Democrat resolution that was passed last Thursday and highlights the ridiculous nature of the Dem Scheme.  https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/03/sunday-talks-jim-jo...
.
Weaponizing Impeachment 
against Political Opponents
by Alan M. Dershowitz
{ gatestoneinstitute.org } ~ The constitutional power to impeach a duly elected president was intended by the Framers of the Constitution as a neutral... non-partisan tool of last resort to be used against only criminal incumbents in extreme cases. It is now being deployed as a partisan weapon that can be used routinely against presidents of a different party from those who control the House of Representatives. Under the views of some members of Congress, any time the House is controlled by one party, a simple majority can properly vote to impeach. As Congresswoman scumbag/mad-Maxine Waters put it: "Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law." She is wrong. The Constitution is the law and she is not above it. The recent partisan misuse of this emergency power began with the impeachment of former President William Jefferson scumbag/liar-Clinton by the Republican-controlled House in 1998. scumbag/liar-Clinton did not commit an impeachable offense, even if he feloniously lied under oath about his sex life. Such perjury, if it occurred, would satisfy the definition of a "crime," but not meet the required Constitutional criteria of a "high crime and misdemeanor." If President scumbag/liar-Clinton committed a crime, it would be a low crime related to his sex life and comparable to the low felonies — adultery and paying off an extortionist — committed by Alexander Hamilton when he was Secretary of the Treasury. Had Hamilton payed the extortionist from Treasury funds, as he was falsely accused of doing, he would have been guilty of an impeachable high crime. To be impeached, a president must commit a crime misdemeanor is a species of crime and the commission of that crime must also constitute an abuse of office. An abuse of office without an underlying crime is a political sin, but not an impeachable offense. This very issue was debated at the Constitutional Convention, where one delegate proposed "maladministration" as the criteria for impeachment and removal of a president. James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, strongly objected on the ground that so vague and open-ended a criterion would have the president serve at the will of Congress and turn us from a Republic with a strong president into a parliamentary democracy in which the chief executive can be removed by a simple vote of no confidence. Instead, the Convention adopted strict prerequisites for impeachment: treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The House is no more empowered to substitute its own criteria for those enumerated in the Constitution than the Senate would be to change the 2/3 vote requirement for removal to a simple majority or a 3/5 super majority. Congress is not above the law. It is bound by what the Framers accepted and cannot now apply the criterion the framers explicitly rejected...
.
Iran announces fresh violations of 
nuclear deal with extra, advanced centrifuges
By NASSER KARIMI and JON GAMBRELL
{ timesofisrael.com } ~ Iran on Monday broke further away from its collapsing 2015 nuclear deal with world powers by announcing it’s doubling the number of advanced centrifuges it operates... calling the decision a direct result of President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement. The announcement — which also included Iran saying it now has a prototype centrifuge that works 50 times faster than those allowed under the deal — came as demonstrators across the country marked the 40th anniversary of the 1979 US Embassy takeover that started a 444-day hostage crisis. By starting up these advanced centrifuges, Iran further cuts into the one year that experts estimate Tehran would need to have enough material for building a nuclear weapon — if it chose to pursue one. Iran long has insisted its program is for peaceful purposes, though Western fears about its work led to the 2015 agreement that saw Tehran limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.Tehran has gone from producing some 450 grams (1 pound) of low-enriched uranium a day to 5 kilograms (11 pounds), said Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Salehi dramatically pushed a button on a keyboard to start a chain of 30 IR-6 centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, where he was being filmed, increasing the number of working centrifuges to 60. “With the grace of God, I start the gas injection,” the US-trained scientist said...
.
Why scumbag/commie-John Brennan, Peter
Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange
Arrested – And Why UK Officials Obliged
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ According to recent reports U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr are spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election... One recent quote from a media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state notes: “One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””.It is interesting that quote comes from a British intelligence official, as there appears to be mounting evidence of an extensive CIA operation that likely involved U.K. intelligence services. In addition, and as a direct outcome, there is an aspect to the CIA operation that overlaps with both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control. In this outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge. To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016. It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations. By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA scumbag/commie-John Brennan to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy Rome and London. Go Deep In a similar fashion the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page.  Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos...   https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/03/why-john-brennan-pe... 
How Impeachment Forces 
the Legislature to Act Judicial
by SHMUEL KLATZKIN
{ spectator.org } ~ As the House slowly morphs scumbag-Adam Schiff’s free-form closed-door search for a crime towards something close to that will be taken for impeachment... the air is filled with grave assertions that impeachment is a political process. That is only trivially true. While any process involving the chief executive and the legislature is by definition political, impeachment has been granted legitimacy over the years when it has been taken seriously as an act of judicature. The general court of the legislature thus, in fact, the Massachusetts Legislature is still called sits in a judicial role. When impeachment was being established in our Constitution, the Framers were aware of the work of the English common lawyer John Selden, who helped achieve one of the landmark accomplishments on the path to democracy, the 1629 Petition of Right. Selden wrote a work entitled Of the Judicature in Parliaments, which analyzed how in cases of impeachment among others Parliament acted as a judiciary body. If the process were not judicial and only political, the people would have no confidence that any crime worthy of impeachment had been committed. John Adams mentions in his diary how he had referred someone curious about the American impeachment process to Selden’s great work. Understanding impeachment as Selden did to be an act of judicature, the Framers considered and rejected “maladministration” as constitutional grounds for impeachment and chose instead “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment was not to be the equivalent to the parliamentary vote of no confidence. The Constitution gave the people through the states the right to choose their own chief executive, who was to be independent of the legislature. Rights can only be denied anyone for crimes or misdemeanors, and then only after judicial due process of law. It follows closely the great British jurist William Blackstone’s description: “A prosecution of already known and established law.” English history records a melancholy example of the deterioration of this judicial process: the trial and subsequent execution of King Charles I. By the time Charles was brought to trial, two bouts of civil war had been fought, and Parliament had been reduced through purge to a docile rump that would do only as Cromwell told it. No English lawyer would associate himself with the prosecution, and there was nothing known to English law that was in the end prosecuted. Political power was all that mattered, and some juridical cover was found to dress up the execution in the trappings of due process. But the judgment was only sustained by the sword, and when Cromwell died and the Army lost its political supremacy, the country in a popular convulsion rejected the legitimacy of the king’s execution and set his son and heir up on the restored throne. This they did even as all accepted constitutional parliamentary supremacy — the true legacy of Selden and his fellow lawyers and parliamentarians. The recent turn away from scumbag-Schiff’s blatantly non-judicial process is a partial acknowledgment of truths that Selden and the Framers clearly saw. Yet unlike the proceedings with  Nixon and scumbag/liar-Clinton, the basics of due process have not been forthrightly established: identification of a crime known to law, cross-examination of all witnesses, open access to all evidence, equal right to call witnesses, and most of all, a true sense of judicial responsibility. Without these, the proceedings will not fail to generate revulsion as a violation of our right to have an independent chief executive elected by us, the people, and not serving at the pleasure of the legislative branch. Of course, those who do not have power want it. But if power is to remain in the hands of the people and not in the hands of those most adept at political maneuvering, then this country will decisively spurn any process that does not follow the model of Selden and Adams. If there is a crime, it must be for a crime known to law and with robust evidence and a process worthy of the high standards of American judicature.
.
.
Decentralizing the Federal Workforce
Arnold Ahlert:  In a time where it might be considered something of an anomaly, Senate Republicans are actually trying to do something to both help the American people and drain the Washington swamp.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have introduced the “Helping Infrastructure Restore the Economy (HIRE) Act.” The legislation would “require that the headquarters of certain Federal agencies and permanent duty stations of employees of certain Federal agencies be relocated in order to provide an opportunity to build needed infrastructure in certain areas and to share the benefits of Federal employment with economically distressed regions.”

The HIRE Act would move 90% of positions in 10 executive departments to 10 different states. The Department of Agriculture would be headquartered in Missouri, Commerce in Pennsylvania, Education in Tennessee, Energy in Kentucky, Health and Human Services in Indiana, Housing and Urban Development in Ohio, Interior in New Mexico, Labor in West Virginia, Transportation in Michigan, and Veterans Affairs in South Carolina.

“Every year, Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars fund federal agencies that are mainly located in the D.C. bubble,” Hawley explained. “That’s a big part of the problem with Washington: they’re too removed from the rest of America. The HIRE Act will move policymakers directly into the communities they serve, creating thousands of jobs for local communities and saving taxpayers billions of dollars along the way.”

Blackburn agreed. “Moving agencies outside of Washington, D.C. both boosts local economies and lowers costs — that’s a winning combination,” she stated. “This legislation would enable Americans across the country to have greater access to good jobs. Tennesseans would greatly benefit from having portions of the Department of Education in the Volunteer State. It is my hope that the HIRE Act will quickly pass the Senate.”

Unsurprisingly, there was blowback from whence one would expect it to arise. “Employees don’t want to move, and it doesn’t make sense for them to move,” said American Federation of Government Employees spokesman Peter Winch. He further insisted the move “does not serve a public purpose.”

Winch’s handwringing was echoed by DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who vowed to fight the bill. “Hundreds of federal employees and their families have already been impacted by attempts to relocate agencies, which directly hurts their operations,” she said in a statement. “Congress cannot do its job without the unvarnished facts and briefings that nonpartisan agencies give the House and Senate almost daily. I have already gotten language in appropriations bills that would block politically motivated moves outside the National Capital Region, and I will continue to fight these relocations with every tool at my disposal.”

What’s really going on here? What’s alway going on among a cohort of workers grown used to the perks and privileges of government employment. Federal workers who make 17% more in total compensation than comparable private-sector workers, according to a 2017 CBO study. Federal workers who have job protections that make them virtually impossible to fire once they have completed their first year. In all the ensuing years, federal workers can retain their jobs for 170 days after their superiors have decided to fire them. And even after they’re fired, they can file an appeal that takes an average of 243 days to process.

In short, while private-sector workers face a one-in-77 chance of being fired or laid off, the odds of a federal worker being fired are one-in-500, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

More germane, federal workers also receive “Payscale Locality Adjustments,” as in higher pay if one is working in an area with a higher cost of living — which is why moving many of these jobs to low cost-of-living locales would save taxpayers billions of dollars.

Even more revealing is the sense of entitlement. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced in June it was moving to the Kansas City area, nearly 80% of the workforce left rather than locate. When Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced the move, employees turned their back in silent protest. “It’s a mixture of outrage and resignation,” USDA researcher Andrew Crane-Droesch said at the time of the announcement, regarding morale at his office. “Nobody wants to move — nothing against Kansas City.”

Really? When Interior Secretary David Bernhardt  announced in July that Bureau of Land Management (BLM) also planned to move 81% of the agency’s headquarters staff west of the Rockies by 2020 — where the federal government controls more than 80% of the land — dozens of former officials denounced the move. “You’re setting up the BLM for failure,” insisted Elaine Zielinski, former BLM director in Arizona and Oregon.

Sally Jewell, former Interior Secretary in the Obama administration, was equally upset. “They are going to take the remaining people, which largely deal with advocacy for the BLM in Washington, DC, and move them to Grand Junction, Colorado. Because that is such an epicenter for political leadership,” she said, also complaining. “If you have raised your family in Washington, DC, you really know this business well, you’ve got relationships on Capitol Hill, your kids are in school, your spouse is working, and they want to move you to Grand Junction.”

“This is a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to get people to quit,” she added “We are losing really good people across government, and that is partly the intent. I think that is a shame.”

Note the arrogance and sarcasm. American taxpayers can’t possibly expect federal workers to give up their tony lives and connections in the nation’s capital to work in “misbegotten” locales like Grand Junction. Thus, forcing people to do so is really about getting these “noble” public servants to quit instead.

Nonsense. Few things speak to the polarization of this nation more clearly than the idea that “flyover country” is anathema to bureaucrats, because it lacks the cultural “sophistication” of the nation’s capital. And if virtually un-fireable workers wish to terminate their own jobs in protest, one suspects the overwhelming majority of American see that as a win-win, despite all the handwringing by swamp defenders, who assert that moving agencies out of DC is a bad idea “because that’s where decisions get made.”

Like the ones that got us $22 trillion in debt? Yet again, utter nonsense in an age of high-speed Internet, teleconferencing — and legendary bureaucratic inertia epitomized by a Veterans Administration that was allowing people to die, even as data was fudged, waiting lists were kept secret, and VA execs were getting bonuses.

More important, Americans are sick and tired of one-size-fits-all centralized government and a bureaucracy that employs 1.87 million civilian full-time federal employees.

If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is smart, he’ll make this legislation a high-profile priority. Americans deserve to know which senators have their backs — and which ones prefer to preserve swampy status quo.

America has endured government of, by, and for the bureaucracy for far too long.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/66462?mailing_id=4623&utm_mediu...  

Views: 8

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Joe Biden Vows: Give Taxpayer-Funded Obamacare To All Illegal Aliens In U.S.

Former Vice President and 2020 Democrat presidential primary candidate Joe Biden is vowing to give Obamacare, funded by American taxpayers, to all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

During an interview with Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart, Biden forgot that Obamacare technically bans illegal aliens from enrolling in healthcare plans — although illegal aliens are still able to obtain subsidized and free healthcare at Americans’ expense — and promised that under his plan, all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens would be able to get Obamacare.

The exchange went as follows:

DIAZ-BALART: When I … NBC moderated that first debate with you, I didn’t … I don’t recall a clear answer, under your plan should … would the 11, 12 million undocumented immigrants that live in the United States, that have been here many for generations, would they have access …

BIDEN: Yes.

DIAZ-BALART: — to health insurance.

BIDEN: Yes, they … if they can buy into the system like everybody else.

DIAZ-BALART: Because you know, in [Obamacare] they can’t.

BIDEN: Yeah. Yeah, I know. Well they can, that’s my point. They continue to be able to do that.

DIAN-BALART: They cannot under the ObamaCare.

BIDEN: Well and that’s my point, they will though. They will be able to buy into … [illegal aliens] would be able to buy in, just like anyone else could.

Biden joins Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — among other 2020 Democrats — in committing to forcing American taxpayers to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens who arrive in the U.S.

Already, due to loopholes, American taxpayers are spending nearly $20 billion every year to provide illegal aliens with subsidized healthcare, emergency room visits, and other health services.

Under the 2020 Democrats’ plan to provide taxpayer-funded healthcare to all illegal aliens living in the U.S., Americans would be billed potentially $660 billion every decade just to cover the costs. Other research has found that the plan would cost Americans at least $23 billion every year.

As Breitbart News has reported, experts have said that giving taxpayer-funded healthcare to effectively all foreign nationals who can make it to America’s borders would drive “strong incentives for people with serious health problems to enter the country or remain longer than their visas allow in order to get government-funded care.”

Despite 2020 Democrats’ continued push for taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens, American voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the plan. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey revealed that the healthcare-for-illegal-aliens plan is the least popular policy position, with opposition from 62 percent of U.S. voters.

Similarly, a CNN poll from July discovered that 63 percent of likely swing voters oppose providing healthcare to illegal aliens, along with nearly 6-in-10 of all likely U.S. voters and 61 percent of moderates. A Rasmussen Reports survey also found that likely voters, by a majority of 55 percent, oppose giving healthcare to even the most low-income illegal aliens.

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service