In September of 2009, Representative Joe Wilson, R-SC, was famously condemned for daring to call out "You lie!" to President Obama as the president addressed a Joint Session of Congress. Was it a violation of proper decorum? Probably. Was Representative Wilson speaking truth to power? You bet he was.
During the 2010 State of the Union address, in violation of all protocol, President Obama condemned the members of the United States Supreme Court for their decision in the Citizens United case. Justice Samuel Alito was seen to mutter "Not True", and with near uniformity across the Donkey side of the Politisphere there was outrage that a mere Justice would so disrespect The President in public.
So what can be expected when President Donald J. Trump steps to the lectern on the evening of February 28, 2017, at 9:00 PM EST?
To suggest that members of the Democrat party have less than positive sentiments regarding Trump would be a phenomenal understatement. Based upon their clear history of respect for propriety and decorum though, would it not be reasonable to expect them to conduct themselves in a manner befitting the dignity of Senators and Representatives participating in a Presidential Address to Congress?
One can certainly hope. This particular One certainly does.
Being hopeful is not the same as being confident. The public activities of the Opposition in this country since the evening of November 8, 2016, make it abundantly clear crude, vulgar and violent self expression as a method of communicating political dissent are deemed reasonable and acceptable to a certain segment of the populace. As good politicians, it can be expected that those under the leadership of Senator Schumer and Representative Pelosi will be tempted to do anything they believe they can get away with in attempts to solidify support among the unruly mob that is the vocal face of their base these days.
Many Democrat members of Congress will be inviting illegal aliens, Muslim immigrants, and other minority constituencies to attend the address. Is there perhaps more than a little bit of hope these guests will relieve Democrats of the need to conduct their own Joe Wilson attack against acceptable behavior? Then these Senators and Representatives will be able to shrug their shoulders in sadness and muse solemnly in front of the cameras how can one possibly condemn the spontaneously erupting passion of a public feeling personally threatened by a man and his minions who is supposed to be the President of All The United States of America, but is instead actively against their own Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness?
Should such outbursts take place, Democrats would do well to remember that if a can of kerosene is poured over a pile of brush and then a match tossed on top, it is not the wood that is at fault for the fire.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Press: WTF?
So, The Press had it's feelings hurt last week when CNN, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Time, Politico and others were excluded from a gaggle in Sean Spicer's office at the White House. Never mind the pool representatives, the "big three" broadcast networks and others were included; the Real News outlets didn't get to go on the date, while others they derided as being something less than legitimate journalistic endeavors were allowed in.
Mainstream media needs to be a bit careful there. Deriding their "lessers" in such a manner dangerously close to defining those competitors as "fake news". Is it really safe to go there?
While they were busy bawling their eyes out over this existential threat to the First Amendment (even though it isn't), a much more disturbing comment was made by a MSNBC anchor. Despite the fact this comment directly assaults the credibility of a free press, the majority of the Mediacracy who define themselves as the Guardians of Democracy ignored it as though they were farting in church after covering the baked bean festival and desperately praying no one would notice or at the very least not trace it back to them.
Mika Brezezinski cut loose with the ultimate That Which Must Not Ever Be Uttered truth bomb as far as the press is concerned: "[Trump] is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job,"
The general silence from the mainstream media was deafening, and speaks volumes. That which you refuse to condemn, you tacitly condone.
The less than divine Ms. B later compounded her error by claiming not to have said what any casual listener to the videotape can clearly hear her say. Criticizing the promulgation of false facts by making up false facts is far from a winning tactic.
No child, when caught with his arm elbow-deep in the cookie jar, has ever been successful at convincing Mom that he doesn't even know where the cookie jar is. Or what cookies are.
Mainstream media needs to be a bit careful there. Deriding their "lessers" in such a manner dangerously close to defining those competitors as "fake news". Is it really safe to go there?
While they were busy bawling their eyes out over this existential threat to the First Amendment (even though it isn't), a much more disturbing comment was made by a MSNBC anchor. Despite the fact this comment directly assaults the credibility of a free press, the majority of the Mediacracy who define themselves as the Guardians of Democracy ignored it as though they were farting in church after covering the baked bean festival and desperately praying no one would notice or at the very least not trace it back to them.
Mika Brezezinski cut loose with the ultimate That Which Must Not Ever Be Uttered truth bomb as far as the press is concerned: "[Trump] is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job,"
The general silence from the mainstream media was deafening, and speaks volumes. That which you refuse to condemn, you tacitly condone.
The less than divine Ms. B later compounded her error by claiming not to have said what any casual listener to the videotape can clearly hear her say. Criticizing the promulgation of false facts by making up false facts is far from a winning tactic.
No child, when caught with his arm elbow-deep in the cookie jar, has ever been successful at convincing Mom that he doesn't even know where the cookie jar is. Or what cookies are.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Town Hall 2017: Flashback to 2009
So, you're a Republican Representative or Senator in 2017 and all you want to do is hold a Town Hall meeting. Press the flesh. Sell yourself. Reassure your constituents they are the only reason you get out of bed in the morning.
And instead showing you proper deference and respect, instead of conducting themselves with due decorum, whole swaths of the hoi polloi only want to shout you down and express their frustration that Donald J. Trump is President of the United States.
Man (or woman, as the case may be), that must really suck.
In fact, just about this time eight years ago the tables were reversed. Hordes of Tea Party supporters and other rational minded Americans showed up at primarily Democrat sponsored Town Halls to express their outrage at the health care plan that was taking shape and eventually shoved through with zero support from the Republican side of the aisle. Some of you may well have participated in those protests. Many no doubt applauded Americans exercising their First Amendment rights to give their servants in Washington a piece of their mind.
Servants? That's right, servants. Too quickly, elected officials from the United States Capitol all the way down to the smallest Town Council seem to forget they are public servants, not exalted lords and ladies bestowed with wisdom beyond the ken of the masses.
Remember that: You, Senator, and you, Representative, are a public servant sent to Washington to serve the best interests of your constituents and your country. Not to get re-elected. Not to enrich yourself beyond your wildest childhood mud-hut imaginings. Not to line up a "job" with a think tank or Fortune 50 company. Your job description is Servant.
So serve. Don't run and hide. Don't complain that folks showing up at the Town Halls you host are mean or unruly. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Right now, it is happening to you. Suck it up, Buttercup.
There are fair and very reasonable steps you can take to maintain some degree of order. You represent a very specific district or state. When you hold a meeting open to your constituents it is very reasonable to exclude those who do not reside within your district or state. Require photo identification indicating a residential address within the borders of your area of representation in order to gain access to the meeting. This will eliminate many of the concerns that have been raised about protesters being brought in from distant points to disrupt your proceedings. If you are the Representative from Wyoming there is no reason you should entertain residents of Chicago, or Los Angeles, or New York. They have their own representatives and should raise their concerns in those appropriate venues.
Once you have exercised proper and reasonable gate control though, stand up and be an adult. Those folks are your constituents, whether they voted for you or not. You are obligated to represent all of them, not just the ones who make you feel good. You can't do that of you won't grant them a fair hearing. Once you have heard them out, know who you are. Own your positions and explain your actions. Be patient. You may be shouted down or derided. Steadfastly explain your positions and motivations between the outbursts. You may not change any minds, and you certainly won't enjoy many of the insults directed at you. At least you won't be labeled a coward, too unprincipled or afraid to face those you are charged with effectively representing.
You're the one who signed up for politics. If you wanted soothing you could have taken on an easier career such as high school teacher for delinquent students or battlefield sapper. And if you still aren't happy, were you aware you aren't required to run for re-election or even serve out the entirety of your current term?
And instead showing you proper deference and respect, instead of conducting themselves with due decorum, whole swaths of the hoi polloi only want to shout you down and express their frustration that Donald J. Trump is President of the United States.
Man (or woman, as the case may be), that must really suck.
In fact, just about this time eight years ago the tables were reversed. Hordes of Tea Party supporters and other rational minded Americans showed up at primarily Democrat sponsored Town Halls to express their outrage at the health care plan that was taking shape and eventually shoved through with zero support from the Republican side of the aisle. Some of you may well have participated in those protests. Many no doubt applauded Americans exercising their First Amendment rights to give their servants in Washington a piece of their mind.
Servants? That's right, servants. Too quickly, elected officials from the United States Capitol all the way down to the smallest Town Council seem to forget they are public servants, not exalted lords and ladies bestowed with wisdom beyond the ken of the masses.
Remember that: You, Senator, and you, Representative, are a public servant sent to Washington to serve the best interests of your constituents and your country. Not to get re-elected. Not to enrich yourself beyond your wildest childhood mud-hut imaginings. Not to line up a "job" with a think tank or Fortune 50 company. Your job description is Servant.
So serve. Don't run and hide. Don't complain that folks showing up at the Town Halls you host are mean or unruly. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Right now, it is happening to you. Suck it up, Buttercup.
There are fair and very reasonable steps you can take to maintain some degree of order. You represent a very specific district or state. When you hold a meeting open to your constituents it is very reasonable to exclude those who do not reside within your district or state. Require photo identification indicating a residential address within the borders of your area of representation in order to gain access to the meeting. This will eliminate many of the concerns that have been raised about protesters being brought in from distant points to disrupt your proceedings. If you are the Representative from Wyoming there is no reason you should entertain residents of Chicago, or Los Angeles, or New York. They have their own representatives and should raise their concerns in those appropriate venues.
Once you have exercised proper and reasonable gate control though, stand up and be an adult. Those folks are your constituents, whether they voted for you or not. You are obligated to represent all of them, not just the ones who make you feel good. You can't do that of you won't grant them a fair hearing. Once you have heard them out, know who you are. Own your positions and explain your actions. Be patient. You may be shouted down or derided. Steadfastly explain your positions and motivations between the outbursts. You may not change any minds, and you certainly won't enjoy many of the insults directed at you. At least you won't be labeled a coward, too unprincipled or afraid to face those you are charged with effectively representing.
You're the one who signed up for politics. If you wanted soothing you could have taken on an easier career such as high school teacher for delinquent students or battlefield sapper. And if you still aren't happy, were you aware you aren't required to run for re-election or even serve out the entirety of your current term?
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Anti-2A Crowd: Please Pick a Side
Assault Weapons Are Not Protected By the Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules
On February 21, 2017, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the assault weapons ban imposed by the state of Maryland passed Constitutional muster. In part, a passage was cited from the 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia decision allowing governments to regulate weapons similar in design and function to those issued to the military, itself a highly questionable interpretation.
For years, one of the loudest arguments offered by those who oppose the notion that mere Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms for their own private lawful purposes was that the Second Amendment was adopted to provide for the creation of what is today recognized as the National Guard. State level organized military units, not individuals concerned with protecting themselves and their property from individuals or governments unlawfully intending harm.
So which is it, Anti-2A Crowd: Does the amendment only refer to the creation of a State Militia (military), or does it permit private citizens to bear arms, just not scary ones? The argument that "yeah, you can have guns but not guns that might prove effective in a crisis" seems to blur your message just a bit.
The language of the amendment itself seems relatively unambiguous.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Shall not be infringed. Period. End of amendment. No invisible ink, no secret decoder ring required, no list of entirely subjective and arbitrary list of exceptions included.
"Shall not be infringed" does not appear to offer a tremendous amount of wiggle room. "Arms" does not impose a limit on size, features or lethal capacity. While I cannot imagine a scenario in which I could possibly want or need to possess a nuclear weapon, as an uninfringable right I should be able to do so as long as I command the resources and the desire to acquire one. Through the years there have been neighbors who I would be uncomfortable with having access to a sling shot. Regardless, my discomfort does not negate their rights. Preemptively punishing (restricting) someone for a non-specific act they might conceivably commit at some undefined future point in time is an undeniable infringement, and a denial of the concepts of freedom and personal accountability the United States Constitution enshrines.
On February 21, 2017, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the assault weapons ban imposed by the state of Maryland passed Constitutional muster. In part, a passage was cited from the 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia decision allowing governments to regulate weapons similar in design and function to those issued to the military, itself a highly questionable interpretation.
For years, one of the loudest arguments offered by those who oppose the notion that mere Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms for their own private lawful purposes was that the Second Amendment was adopted to provide for the creation of what is today recognized as the National Guard. State level organized military units, not individuals concerned with protecting themselves and their property from individuals or governments unlawfully intending harm.
So which is it, Anti-2A Crowd: Does the amendment only refer to the creation of a State Militia (military), or does it permit private citizens to bear arms, just not scary ones? The argument that "yeah, you can have guns but not guns that might prove effective in a crisis" seems to blur your message just a bit.
The language of the amendment itself seems relatively unambiguous.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Shall not be infringed. Period. End of amendment. No invisible ink, no secret decoder ring required, no list of entirely subjective and arbitrary list of exceptions included.
"Shall not be infringed" does not appear to offer a tremendous amount of wiggle room. "Arms" does not impose a limit on size, features or lethal capacity. While I cannot imagine a scenario in which I could possibly want or need to possess a nuclear weapon, as an uninfringable right I should be able to do so as long as I command the resources and the desire to acquire one. Through the years there have been neighbors who I would be uncomfortable with having access to a sling shot. Regardless, my discomfort does not negate their rights. Preemptively punishing (restricting) someone for a non-specific act they might conceivably commit at some undefined future point in time is an undeniable infringement, and a denial of the concepts of freedom and personal accountability the United States Constitution enshrines.
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Pepsi, No Coke!
So, you have a job in the Executive branch of the federal government. Good for you!
Guess what? Your boss is the duly confirmed Secretary of your agency, and your Chief Operating Officer is President Donald J. Trump. Your marching orders come from these individuals, and they do in fact get to define the objectives of your job.
You do not have the privilege of defining your own "mission". Your organization's mission is what your bosses say it is, and your priorities need to be what they define them as being. If you find you do not agree with the defined objectives of your job, just like any other employee in any other business in the country you are free to leave. You are not free to stay in place and wage guerrilla war against the chosen path your "business" has embarked upon.
In the Real World, as opposed to the Fantasy Island many entitled government employees believe themselves to inhabit, anyone who accepts a job at the Pepsi Factory is obliged to further the mission of producing and distributing Pepsi. They are not required to drink Pepsi, or even like Pepsi, but when wearing the uniform they need to do everything they can to make Pepsi the number one product on the planet. When they change out of their work clothes at the end of the day they are more than welcome to swing by the convenience store, pick up a six pack of Coke, and drink away their sorrows in the glow of TV Land emanating from their television sets. First thing next morning, it's back to "Rah! Rah! Pepsi!!"
If they can't handle that, then they are honor bound to leave their job at Pepsi and find something else to do they can feel good about.
You, federal employee, have that same obligation. The voters have spoken, and if you cannot abide their choice you must as a manner of honor and integrity get out of the way. If you can grit your teeth, do all that is asked of you as it is asked of you to the very best of your ability then you are welcome to hang in there. Who knows, you might even get a new set of leaders in four years, or eight years, or whenever who might better suit your ideals. Bully! Until then, keep your nose to the grindstone doing as you are asked by your rightful leaders, or let your feet hit the streets and find the life that is better suited to who you are.
Guess what? Your boss is the duly confirmed Secretary of your agency, and your Chief Operating Officer is President Donald J. Trump. Your marching orders come from these individuals, and they do in fact get to define the objectives of your job.
You do not have the privilege of defining your own "mission". Your organization's mission is what your bosses say it is, and your priorities need to be what they define them as being. If you find you do not agree with the defined objectives of your job, just like any other employee in any other business in the country you are free to leave. You are not free to stay in place and wage guerrilla war against the chosen path your "business" has embarked upon.
In the Real World, as opposed to the Fantasy Island many entitled government employees believe themselves to inhabit, anyone who accepts a job at the Pepsi Factory is obliged to further the mission of producing and distributing Pepsi. They are not required to drink Pepsi, or even like Pepsi, but when wearing the uniform they need to do everything they can to make Pepsi the number one product on the planet. When they change out of their work clothes at the end of the day they are more than welcome to swing by the convenience store, pick up a six pack of Coke, and drink away their sorrows in the glow of TV Land emanating from their television sets. First thing next morning, it's back to "Rah! Rah! Pepsi!!"
If they can't handle that, then they are honor bound to leave their job at Pepsi and find something else to do they can feel good about.
You, federal employee, have that same obligation. The voters have spoken, and if you cannot abide their choice you must as a manner of honor and integrity get out of the way. If you can grit your teeth, do all that is asked of you as it is asked of you to the very best of your ability then you are welcome to hang in there. Who knows, you might even get a new set of leaders in four years, or eight years, or whenever who might better suit your ideals. Bully! Until then, keep your nose to the grindstone doing as you are asked by your rightful leaders, or let your feet hit the streets and find the life that is better suited to who you are.
Saturday, February 11, 2017
A False Premise Does Not Make One Right
Below is but one example of several similar memes making the rounds:
Though no doubt the messengers are high-fiving each other for their brilliant insights and put-down of the anti-human haters they struggle against on a daily basis, the sign is based upon a totally invalid premise.
When one invokes the KKK, clearly one is not implying that all Christians support the agenda of the KKK in whole or in part, nor is there a suggestion that the KKK represents them to any degree.
Likewise, when one invokes terms such as "radical Islamic terrorist" and similarly specific designations, the clear intent is to identify that small portion of the population who have co-opted specific elements of a religion for their own ends. Having wrapped themselves in the mantle of Islam does not automatically mean the terrorists, "supported" by the declaration of a Caliphate, magically represent every Muslim on the planet or that all or even most followers of Islam support ISIS et al.
Twisting what is said and defining it to represent that which you claim to abhor is to transform yourself into exactly what you profess to fight against. The ends do not justify the means.
Similarly, anyone who expresses a desire to stop individuals from entering the United States through other than legally authorized means, and to ensure that those who were granted entry for specific purposes or for a defined duration leave when those purposes no longer obtain or the duration has expired, is accused of being racist or worse and of wholesale loathing all who are immigrants.
Immigrants as a group are not a problem. The problem is those who do not feel obliged to follow established protocols to enter the country. Those and only those individuals are the specifically defined subset of the entire immigrant population. No matter how desperate or heart-wrenching their personal stories may be, no one has the right to come here outside the law just because they want a better life for themselves or their families.
And no, we are not all immigrants. Mindless chanting of an untruth, no matter how fervently it is desired that it be truth, does not make it a fact.
Lawfully practiced immigration is a healthy and vital part of what built this country into the nation that was able to win two world wars and build the greatest economy with the most opportunity for its people in the history of the planet. That is precisely why so many are eager to come here. Throwing open the doors to any who wish to pillage the treasury is one of many factors degrading the United States into a country that the Greatest Generation would not recognize, and would not wish to be a part of.
Though no doubt the messengers are high-fiving each other for their brilliant insights and put-down of the anti-human haters they struggle against on a daily basis, the sign is based upon a totally invalid premise.
When one invokes the KKK, clearly one is not implying that all Christians support the agenda of the KKK in whole or in part, nor is there a suggestion that the KKK represents them to any degree.
Likewise, when one invokes terms such as "radical Islamic terrorist" and similarly specific designations, the clear intent is to identify that small portion of the population who have co-opted specific elements of a religion for their own ends. Having wrapped themselves in the mantle of Islam does not automatically mean the terrorists, "supported" by the declaration of a Caliphate, magically represent every Muslim on the planet or that all or even most followers of Islam support ISIS et al.
Twisting what is said and defining it to represent that which you claim to abhor is to transform yourself into exactly what you profess to fight against. The ends do not justify the means.
Similarly, anyone who expresses a desire to stop individuals from entering the United States through other than legally authorized means, and to ensure that those who were granted entry for specific purposes or for a defined duration leave when those purposes no longer obtain or the duration has expired, is accused of being racist or worse and of wholesale loathing all who are immigrants.
Immigrants as a group are not a problem. The problem is those who do not feel obliged to follow established protocols to enter the country. Those and only those individuals are the specifically defined subset of the entire immigrant population. No matter how desperate or heart-wrenching their personal stories may be, no one has the right to come here outside the law just because they want a better life for themselves or their families.
And no, we are not all immigrants. Mindless chanting of an untruth, no matter how fervently it is desired that it be truth, does not make it a fact.
Lawfully practiced immigration is a healthy and vital part of what built this country into the nation that was able to win two world wars and build the greatest economy with the most opportunity for its people in the history of the planet. That is precisely why so many are eager to come here. Throwing open the doors to any who wish to pillage the treasury is one of many factors degrading the United States into a country that the Greatest Generation would not recognize, and would not wish to be a part of.
Thursday, February 09, 2017
Gerrymandering Is Like Representatives and Senators: They All Stink - Except For Mine!
I've missed the Liberal outrage over one of their own not only admitting to unabashed gerrymandering while governor of Maryland but proudly stating "As a governor, I held that redistricting pen in my own Democratic hand. I was convinced that we should use our political power to pass a map that was more favorable for the election of Democratic candidates."
Is this something Liberals only find deplorable when Republicans are doing it and thwarting their compulsive need to take over the universe?
How about getting behind an initiative to have congressional and legislative districts drawn by computers programmed to create districts that are as geographically compact and contiguous as possible without giving any consideration whatsoever to age, race, religious or other demographic factors?
Or is a world without blatant bias in Liberal favor the stuff of nightmares too horrifying to even be imagined?
O’Malley now supports non-partisan commissions to draw congressional districts he admits gerrymandering
Is this something Liberals only find deplorable when Republicans are doing it and thwarting their compulsive need to take over the universe?
How about getting behind an initiative to have congressional and legislative districts drawn by computers programmed to create districts that are as geographically compact and contiguous as possible without giving any consideration whatsoever to age, race, religious or other demographic factors?
Or is a world without blatant bias in Liberal favor the stuff of nightmares too horrifying to even be imagined?
O’Malley now supports non-partisan commissions to draw congressional districts he admits gerrymandering
Wednesday, February 08, 2017
Elizabeth Warren - Madam Senator, Please Sit Down
NPR - February 8, 2017 - Republicans Vote To Silence Sen. Elizabeth Warren In Confirmation Debate
On Tuesday night, between February 7 and 8, 2017, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was silenced and prevented from participating further in the confirmation debate for Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as the next United States Attorney General. Her sin was a violation of Rule XIX, in this case "impugn[ing] the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama" according to Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
In his comments, McConnell incorrectly cited Warren quoting from a letter by Coretta Scott King (though she did also do that during her remarks) written during Sessions' failed confirmation hearing to become a federal district court judge.
Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) admonished Warren "you stated that a sitting senator is a disgrace to the Department of Justice." In audio from her floor remarks, Warren is clearly heard to reply that the comment seemed to have been made not by King, but by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy — whom she also quoted — "although I would be glad to repeat it in my own words," she added.
Warren later observed "So, quoting Sen. Kennedy calling then-nominee Sessions a disgrace is a violation of Senate rules? It was certainly not in 1986."
That would be correct, Senator Warren. At the time Senator Kennedy made his disparaging remarks about then U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions, Mr. Sessions was not a Senator.
Rule XIX.2.: No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
The fact that McConnell misspoke when he rose to invoke Rule XIX and cited Mrs. Kings letter provided an opening for much of the print, audio, and video media to report inaccurately that Warren was silenced for quoting the words of Coretta Scott King on the floor of the United States Senate. The fact the story is totally false is not relevant to those who wish to seize upon any opportunity to malign the character and intentions of the Republican Party and those who support them. If a lie is told loudly enough and often enough, eventually few if any will question its veracity.
On Tuesday night, between February 7 and 8, 2017, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was silenced and prevented from participating further in the confirmation debate for Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as the next United States Attorney General. Her sin was a violation of Rule XIX, in this case "impugn[ing] the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama" according to Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
In his comments, McConnell incorrectly cited Warren quoting from a letter by Coretta Scott King (though she did also do that during her remarks) written during Sessions' failed confirmation hearing to become a federal district court judge.
Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) admonished Warren "you stated that a sitting senator is a disgrace to the Department of Justice." In audio from her floor remarks, Warren is clearly heard to reply that the comment seemed to have been made not by King, but by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy — whom she also quoted — "although I would be glad to repeat it in my own words," she added.
Warren later observed "So, quoting Sen. Kennedy calling then-nominee Sessions a disgrace is a violation of Senate rules? It was certainly not in 1986."
That would be correct, Senator Warren. At the time Senator Kennedy made his disparaging remarks about then U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions, Mr. Sessions was not a Senator.
Rule XIX.2.: No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
The fact that McConnell misspoke when he rose to invoke Rule XIX and cited Mrs. Kings letter provided an opening for much of the print, audio, and video media to report inaccurately that Warren was silenced for quoting the words of Coretta Scott King on the floor of the United States Senate. The fact the story is totally false is not relevant to those who wish to seize upon any opportunity to malign the character and intentions of the Republican Party and those who support them. If a lie is told loudly enough and often enough, eventually few if any will question its veracity.
Monday, February 06, 2017
Get a Clue, America
Black Lives Matter!
Marriage Equality!
Gender Equality!
Gender Multiplicity!
Hyphenated-American!
LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ Rights!
Marriage Equality!
Gender Equality!
Gender Multiplicity!
Hyphenated-American!
LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ Rights!
Organic bovine-derived fertilizer.
As long as you buy into the splintering and factionalizing of America, you’re doing it wrong. If you are due a right it is because of your humanity, period. Who you are attracted to; what you do with them; what is, is not or you wish were or were not found between your legs; the melanin content of your skin; or where your six generations removed ancestors came from are not relevant.
Until we are all worried about all of us inclusively, and this is exclusively our concern, we all lose.
Thursday, February 02, 2017
Burn the Flag, Go to Jail!
Do you agree, America?
This question predates
Facebook, or even the internet, and yet it still pops up on a far to regular
basis. The underlying presumption would
seem to be that the flag of the United States of America is to be elevated to
an equal status with the deity of one's choosing and treated with similar if not
in fact greater respect. Anyone who
disagrees is at best sub-human, bent on removing God, Motherhood, and fluffy
bunnies from the universe.
The flag of the United
States, or any other country, is just a symbol.
So, to answer the
question: Regrettably, no. The strength of the American flag is its ability to
endure any desecration, degradation, or denunciation and continue to fly
proudly in defiance, affirming all that is right with the idea that is the
United States of America. If it cannot survive unless coddled like a hothouse flower,
then it has no power or meaning at all.
If you choose to answer
the question in the affirmative I respect your feelings while refusing to
support them. Let me ask: Do you share the same respect and deference
for the flags of other nations, and what those flags mean to the people who by
birth or choice live under them? If not,
then I submit you suffer from a bit of a hypocrisy problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)