Friday, August 15, 2014

Stupid Story of the Week: Rick Perry Indicted by Public Integrity Officials for Demanding DA actually SHOW Integrity..

Breaking News!

Texas Governor Rick Perry is indicted for first threatening and then carrying out a threat to veto funds to a District Attorney's office (including their Public Integrity Unit) after the District Attorney is convicted of drunk driving. Here is the "full story" from FoxNews:


Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been indicted for abuse of power after carrying out a threat to veto funding for state public corruption prosecutors.
The Republican governor is accused of abusing his official powers by publicly promising to veto $7.5 million for the state public integrity unit at the Travis County District Attorney's office. He was indicted by an Austin grand jury Friday.
Perry said he'd veto the funding if the district attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg, didn't resign. Lehmberg had recently been convicted of drunken driving. The state's Public Integrity Unit operates out of her office.
When Lehmberg refused, Perry carried out his veto, drawing an ethics complaint.
Perry is the first Texas governor indicted in nearly a century. He's leaving office in January, but he's a possible 2016 presidential run.

Now, let that sink in for a moment: a District Attorney was CONVICTED of drunk driving (not simply accused or charged mind you) and because of this, Governor Rick Perry demanded this DA resign or else he was going to veto millions of dollars in state funds for that DA's office. When the DA refused, Rick Perry carried through his threat and is now being indicted for a supposed ethics violation by the "Public Integrity Unit" in the DA's office...

So, Rick Perry's attempt to have a DA take responsibility for her CRIMINAL actions and resign (in other words, showing some INTEGRITY as a DA) is being called unethical?? How about a DISTRICT ATTORNEY being convicted of drunk driving and not resigning as if they did nothing wrong or contrary to their duty as an enforcer of the law?

Need I say more?

UPDATE: Apparently I do. Turns out the DA in question (and the reason Perry vetoed the $7.5 million in funds) was found to have had a blood alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit. Plus, here is a good video on her arrest via KXAN in Texas:



Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Iowa Political News of the Day: Steve King as his usually Charming Self & Rand Paul's Disappearing Act!

I'm always a sucker for political stories from back home in Iowa and it turns out today's story is not only a classic story concerning one of my LEAST favorite politicians back home, also includes a rather telling moment for a major 2016 Presidential contender...

My favorite quote from the piece pretty much sums it up:

"But what of Senator Paul? He was eating a burger right next to King when the activists arrived. He shook their hands, took a bite, then fled, as if he’d forgotten that he’d promised to be somewhere else, like another state.?"

Funny, because that's EXACTLY how many Iowans who don't live in King's district feel!

Rand Paul escapes trap set by immigration activists. But what about 2016?

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Let's Not Impeach Obama | RedState

Let's Not Impeach Obama | RedState

Without giving too much of this article's content away, I just want to say something for the record:

The author of this piece, who goes by the name of Repair_Man_Jack, is about as anti-Obama as it gets, even for the good folks at RedState (hey, at least they're honest about it!).

So for this author to not only denounce talk of impeachment of the President (going so far as to suggest Sarah Palin's public call for impeachment is a desperate attempt at getting attention), but also make some great points as to WHY the path of impeachment is illogical and ultimately not justified, is no small thing.

I think this quote from the piece best sums up this idea of impeaching the President:

"You, I and Governor Palin can all believe Barack Obama willfully subverted the accepted spirit of American Jurisprudence to our heart’s content. However, a system that allowed for faith-based prosecution would be no more just than what happened to Brandon Eich. The same code of laws that makes the process of impeachment available demands the presumption of innocence even as it serves as a fulcrum to persecute the most disingenuous people to be brought before the courts."

Kudos to the author for this short but well-put piece.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Supreme Court Strikes Down President Obama's NLRB "Recess Appointees" - Told Ya So!

Probably one of the most important political news stories of the week (though not was well reported in the MSM as I would have thought..big surprise there), was the U.S. Supreme Court striking down President Obama's act of appointing of members to the National Labor Relations Board during a Senate recess well over two years ago.

At the time and to this day, President Obama claimed that while the Senate was holding formal meetings every three days or so back in 2012, they were REALLY in recess and thus he could appoint three new members to the NLRB as recess appointments.

Many folks (especially Republicans) immediately pointed out the rather radical idea that President Obama was ultimately making: He knows when the Senate is recess or not, not the Senate.

Heck, it was obvious that even a small-time blogger like myself pointed it out and openly denounced what the President was doing was wrong and illegal.

It took over two years, but the U.S. Supreme Court finally heard and decided this issue early this week:

"The court ruled 9-0 that Obama’s appointments were unconstitutional because the Senate was not truly in recess when he made them during a three-day break in pro forma meetings of the legislative body."
- Josh Gerstein of POLITICO

Sadly though, while the President was effectively "slapped down" in terms of what he can and can't do with his Executive authority, there is a catch to this ruling (isn't there always?).

While all nine justices agreed what the President did was an unconstitutional breach of authority, five of the nine justices decided to add something a little extra: a 10-day rule.

The majority decision found that any "recess" less than 10 days long was "presumptively too short" to allow an official recess appointment by the President. However, as the mores conservative wing of the court pointed out (led by Justice Scalia), this mention of an actual number of days could still be used for possible future abuse of the recess appointment authority of the President (regardless of who holds that office), and thus this mention of "10 days" effectively limited Congress's constitutional authority.

Regardless of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court's reservations, the ruling is still a major blow to President Obama and it could very likely put over 400 rulings/decisions made by the NLRB since 2012 in question.

The President, whether intentionally or not, greatly overstepped his bounds of authority in his actions over two years ago and now the Supreme Court has effectively "laid down the law"..But we'll have to wait and see if Justice Scalia's reservations over the majority's ruling come true..

It's too bad nobody warned the President about this possibility years ago..Oh wait, we did.






Saturday, June 21, 2014

Pathetic Partisans Are Taking Over, by the Numbers via Pew Research Center

In my seconding posting from the Pew Research Center, we feature an article concerning how politically polarized the nation has become over the last decade or so.



I will leave the exact numbers to the good folks at PRC, but here's the short version:



While we often hear a great deal in the news about how politically polarized the nation has become, but it's always nice to see some numbers to back up that idea, and the numbers are not good.



Overall, the percentage of Americans who identify as being strongly liberal and strongly conservative have grown over the last decade or so, thus reducing the percentage of Americans who are in the middle (specifically, folks who swing left & right on a fairly equal number of issues). See this great graphic below to illustrate:







Mind you, while having the numbers from the PRC is helpful, we've already seen the signs of this polarization for years now. Here are few examples:



1. Tea Party- The largely successful rise of the Tea Party movement has, for better or worse, forced the GOP to move farther to the right than they traditional were before and while there is some resistance to this (the current "Establishment vs Tea Party" battle we are seeing within the GOP).



2. Death of the Blue Dogs- "Blue Dogs" was the common name for members of the Democratic party that while being largely loyal to their party, had some conservative views (they were generally lock-step with the Democrats on economic issues, but were socially conservative to varying degrees). Before the 2010 elections, there 54 members of the House of Representatives that belonged to this congressional coalition, but only 26 members "survived" the election. This coalition was weakened further in the 2012 elections and whether this coalition will survive the next few election cycles is hard to say..



3. Death of Compromise- As any American with a basic knowledge of American history knows, this nation's government was founded on the concept of compromise and without compromise, the Constitution would never have come into existence. Compromise today however, is seen by both sides are simply giving in to the other side (even if your side is actually getting something out of it), and is often used as political ammunition by the extremes of both parties to squeeze out those who dare advocate such a thing.



Now this sentiment isn't necessarily new, but the strength and pervasiveness of it has grown a great deal over the years. Nobody likes to compromise, but in the past it was always seen as a "necessary evil" to keep the government functioning and get things done.



It's not to say that ALL compromises are good, but to say that ALL compromise with the other side is bad is not only infantile, it's caused our government to grind to halt more times in recent years that in the decades that preceded. Today, the Senate Democrats are afraid to compromise with the GOP because they think it makes them look weak, even if they are the majority, and the same is true of Speaker Boehner in the House. Because of this, it seems that every major piece of legislation is cause for a huge partisan battle that will literally drag on for weeks, months, and even years.



Further, the lack of will for compromise has caused the two major parties to resort to extreme tactics to get their agendas passed because they refuse to work with the other side. Harry Reid has made quite a career of circumventing his GOP counterparts in the Senate, and while this makes him an effective Majority Leader int he Senate, it grows distrusts and outright hatred towards him by the GOP (with good reason)..



So is there a solution to this increasing polarization? Personally, I suspect the answer is no. With both parties being dominated and terrorized by the "Pathetic Partisans" on their extremes (thus making them the majority in time), the likelihood of them cooperating for the better of the whole nation falls with every election cycle...



Kudos again to the Pew Research Center for these great numbers!





7 things to know about polarization in America

A dug-in electorate bodes poorly for the Democrats in November

Kudos to Pew Research Center's Andrew Kohut for this "numbers piece" on the growing challenges the Democrats will have to pull any sort of victory this November for the mid-term elections.



Without giving too much away from the article, the President doesn't seem to be doing his fellow members of the Democratic party in Congress any favors in the polls..



A dug-in electorate bodes poorly for the Democrats in November


Tuesday, June 10, 2014

You Know You're a Pathetic Partisan When: RedState Contributor Fails Basic Reading Comp.

Pathetic Partisanship can lead a person to do some rather strange things...including failing basic reading comprehension and make a rather foolish assumption for the sake of critiquing the President.

Case in-point:

Frequent RedState contributor Moe Lane posted a piece this afternoon that mocked a recent political ad piece/tweet by the White House concerning the Equal Pay Act titled Barack Obama: historically ignorant AND astoundingly hypocritical. In the piece, "Moe" poked fun at the President's tweet by pointing out two apparent (to him at least) errors: That the President seems to think man walked on the moon in 1963 (the year the Equal Pay Act was signed) and that he is being rather hypocritical concerning this topic since the White House doesn't actually practice what it preaches (let me pause a second to let you all be astonished for a moment).