When Politicians Think They Know More Than The Voters

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today that included the following quote by Representative Al Green, a Democrat from Texas:

“I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected. If we don’t impeach him, he will say he’s been vindicated,” Green said. “He will say the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the House and they didn’t take up impeachment. He will say that we had a constitutional duty to do it if it was there, and we didn’t. He will say he’s been vindicated.”

So the Representative is concerned that if President Trump is not impeached, he will be re-elected. Wait a minute. Do you want to impeach him because you believe he has done something impeachable, or do you want to impeach him so that he won’t be re-elected. If this impeachment move political? Of course it is.

The voters get to determine who the next President is. They will decide whether or not President Trump is re-elected.

One of the best quotes during the questioning of Attorney General Barr was the Attorney General’s reply to Senator Richard Blumenthal. The Attorney General stated, “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.” Technically the impeachment process is a political process rather than a criminal justice process, but it was never meant to be a political weapon.

If President Trump continues to keep his promises and do a good job as President, he will be re-elected. Impeachment will not change that–in fact it would probably cost the Democrats their majority in the House of Representatives. They might want to consider than.

Why Are They So Afraid Of This Man?

Vox is reporting today that a group of Senate Democrats are suing to try to strike down President Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general.

The article reports:

The suit, filed in DC federal district court by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (CT), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Mazie Hirono (HI), argues that Whitaker’s appointment was unconstitutional because he was not confirmed by the Senate to his prior position.

…On November 7, Trump asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign, and Sessions agreed. But rather than letting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein succeed to the post, Trump installed Whitaker, who was Sessions’s chief of staff — a job that did not require Senate confirmation.

Trump did this by using a law called the Vacancies Reform Act. Some legal experts have argued the appointment was legal. But others assert the president can’t bump someone up to a Cabinet-level position (a “principal officer” of the executive branch) if that person hasn’t been confirmed by the Senate for this stint in government. That’s the argument Senate Democrats are making in this lawsuit.

Democrats have been sounding the alarm about Whitaker, who repeatedly echoed Trump’s criticisms of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe before he joined the Justice Department. Sessions had recused himself from oversight of Mueller’s investigation, but Whitaker has given no indication he’ll do the same. There are also various controversies involving his business background.

Just a few reminders here. Rod Rosenstein wrote the letter requesting the firing of James Comey. He is a witness in the investigation Mueller is conducting and would be overseeing the investigation if he were Attorney General. How is that not a conflict of interest? Rod Rosenstein (based on past actions) would seem to be a part of the Washington swamp. There is no indication that Whitaker is part of that swamp, and based on the opposition to him by the Senate, I suspect that he is not part of the swamp. There are serious questions about the Mueller investigation going back to the beginning–the scope of the investigation seems to be unlimited, the midnight raid on Paul Manafort seemed to be totally inappropriate as Manafort was a cooperating witness, the indictments Mueller has brought have nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 campaign that he is supposed to be investigating, and everything he has charged people with has nothing to do with the election. Regardless of who is Attorney General, it is time for Mueller to admit he has no evidence (as originally noted by Peter Strzok’s who commented that he hesitated to get involved in the investigation because  he didn’t think there was anything there) and write his report.

I go back to my original question, “Why are the Democrats so afraid of Matthew Whitaker becoming acting Attorney General?”

It Would Have Been Nice If They Had Read The Bill Before They Passed It

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that many of the Democrats who formerly supported ObamaCare are now working to undo some of its major parts.

The article reports:

With some of their most influential constituent groups facing onerous tax increases that are slated to help fund the law’s mandates and regulations, Senators like Al Franken (D-MN), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Patty Murray (D-WA), John Kerry (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and others — all of whom voted in favor of the law — are aiming to delay or outright repeal parts of ObamaCare.

The araticle concludes:

…Threatened by these cost-containment provisions, these members of the health care industry are now intent on eliminating this panel, again using “Republican” terminology, like, “The AMA will work to stop the IPAB from causing this type of double-jeopardy situation for physicians and compromising access to care for seniors and baby-boomers.”

It appears many of the groups that originally supported ObamaCare want to be able to have their cake and eat it, too, and Senate Democrats seem poised to allow them to do just that. The question is, without these sources of funding for all the ObamaCare mandates, and without cost-containment, as intrinsically horrific as mechanisms like the IPAB may be, how will the law be implemented at all?

Couldn’t this have all been avoided by reading and studying the bill in the first place?

When Sarah Palin talked about death panels, she was ridiculed. Now some Democrats have realized the danger to senior citizens that death panels in ObamaCare represent. What ObamaCare has essentially done is take money away from Medicare and put it in Medicaid. What this does is simply take away care from senior citizens and add money to poverty programs. I am not opposed to poverty programs, but it seems as if many of them have morphed into alternative career choices for people who do not want to work. It is time to re-evaluate how and where American tax dollars are being spent. Government spending has become a giant hole into which American workers are expected to put their earnings. We need to examine where that money is going and what impact it is having on our culture and society.

Enhanced by Zemanta