Bummer: On ‘Climate Change’, Millennials Find No Difference Between Trump And Hillary

By William Teach August 2, 2016 – 7:22 am

Of course, this all probably matters little, because the Little Climateflakes will still vote Democrat. Here’s Newsweek dragging an article from the climate extremist site Grist into the mainstream

MANY MILLENNIALS THINK HILLARY CLINTON AND DONALD TRUMP ARE THE SAME ON CLIMATE CHANGE

One presidential candidate says scientists who work on climate change are “practically calling it a hoax” and wants to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency. The other calls climate change “an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.” And yet about four out of 10 millennials in battleground states think there is no difference between those candidates’ views on the issue.

Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate group released polling at the Democratic National Convention last week focused on millennials in 11 battleground states, conducted by Global Strategy Group in June and early July.

Not mentioned is that Tom Steyer’s group wants massive climate action, so, of course the poll is going to find a way to recommend that Democrats yammer about ‘climate change’ and offer tons of Big Government solutions. Anyway, the poll finds that 21% of Millennials are Sanders supporters, you know, the guy what wants to “bring climate deniers to justice”, treating Wrongthink as criminal, and

Young voters are one of the more unpredictable factors in the 2016 election, because they’re more likely than other age groups to support Sanders and less likely to vote in general. Democrats run the risk of losing Sanders holdouts to a third-party candidate. Nearly seven out of 10 Sanders supporters believe there’s no daylight between Trump and Clinton on the issues they care about.

Huh. How about that. Included in the article is a graphic, which shows that a big position in gaining support from the Millennials is switching from “dirty fossil fuels to clean energy….” 55% say they are “much more likely” to vote for that candidate, with 20% “more likely.” Doing away with the EPA polls even higher with Millennials, with 73% saying less likely to vote for them, and 46% saying would never vote for them.

Then there’s this, which should give Hillary a sad

But this may not help Clinton much because young voters don’t recognize how different she is from Trump. Forty-four percent say there’s no distinction between the two candidates on transitioning away from fossil fuels, and 43 percent say there’s no distinction on protecting air and water.

Hillary only mentioned Hotcoldwetdry in passing during her big convention speech. She barely mentions it at all during her tiny campaign appearances, and, since she really holds no press conferences, she can’t be asked about it.

Even if Clinton isn’t going to be heavily focused on climate, Steyer and his group plan to press the issue on her behalf. NextGen is putting $25 million into efforts to turn out young voters who are concerned about climate change, including at more than 200 college campuses. The group’s hope is that young voters will understand that the stakes are so high for climate change that they will vote for Clinton even if they don’t love her.

Millennials are fools, falling for snake oil salesmen, but, then, they’ve been indoctrinated to think this way. Their job prospects are terrible under Democratic Party policies, and their earnings potential are similarly terrible. Climate change policies will further hurt their economic opportunities and lives, yet, they do not seem concerned about those.

Read: Bummer: On ‘Climate Change’, Millennials Find No Difference Between Trump And Hillary »

Posted in Donald Trump, Global Warming, Hillary Clinton | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Trump Is Now Playing The “I Could Lose Because The Election Is Rigged” Game

By William Teach August 2, 2016 – 6:57 am

It’s really not a good thing when a candidate is signaling that he’ll lose at just under 100 days to the general election

Did you catch that?

(Politico) Donald Trump empathized with Bernie Sanders supporters on Monday, saying the Vermont senator lost the Democratic primary because the election was rigged, and said he feared the general election would be rigged as well.

“First of all, it’s rigged and I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, to be honest. I have to be honest because I think my side was rigged,” Trump said at a campaign event in Columbus, Ohio.

Is the election rigged? Well, you can say it’s “rigged” in terms of knowing that the majority of the media will do all they can to portray Trump negatively. Even when he is not making unforced errors. When he’s not throwing the ball into triple coverage. When he’s passing the puck back to the goalie who’s already left the net. But, is it really rigged? No. Who’s going to rig it? This isn’t like the DNC where the party big shots made sure Hillary was the nominee, and the emails showed it.

Duane Patterson notes

Now I have long stated that I don’t think the outcome of the election this fall is in much doubt. Hillary could technically find a way to lose, and events could happen that cause the electorate to turn Trump’s direction, but the Trump campaign itself is just not taking the steps and staying disciplined enough on message to be a viable, winning campaign against the Democrats in November. This clip is just the latest example of that lack of messaging.

If you’re still 95 days out from the election, can someone please explain to me how justifying you’re impending loss is a winning strategy? Does he, or anyone else really believe that a ‘vote for me to stick it to the media and the establishment’ message counts as a reason, and at this point, really about the only reason, to vote for a candidate?

It seems that Trump is working to shrink his electoral wins map, rather than expanding it. If you want just one reason to vote Trump, it’s the Supreme Court. Hugh Hewitt, who’s been very much been against Trump, explains. To go with this, lower federal court appointees. But, Trump is making it oh so hard to think voting for him even matters, when he makes huge mistakes, and then starts in on conspiracy theories.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Is Now Playing The “I Could Lose Because The Election Is Rigged” Game »

Posted in Donald Trump | 27 Comments | Trackback URL

The NRA Used To Totally Support Gun Restrictions They Oppose Now. Or Something

By William Teach August 1, 2016 – 4:33 pm

No, really, they did. But they’re big meanies now for not. Time Magazine says so!

When the NRA Supported Gun Control

….

The NRA’s opposition to gun control, however, is only a few decades , according to Adam Winkler author of the book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “Historically,” writes Winkler, “the leadership of the NRA was more open-minded about gun control than someone familiar with the modern NRA might imagine.”

Not only did the NRA support gun control for much of the 20th century, its leadership in fact lobbied for and co-authored gun control legislation. (snip)

In the 1920s, the National Revolver Association, the arm of the NRA responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made available to police.

The NRA still backs concealed carry permits. They still approve of additional prison time. And bans on gun sales to non-citizens. They are fine with reasonable waiting periods. And they do not freak if the police have a record. So, nothing has changed.

Anyway, supposedly this all changed in the 70’s

For much of the 20th century, the NRA had lobbied and co-authored legislation that was similar to the modern legislative measures the association now characterizes as unconstitutional. But by the 1970s the NRA came to view attempts to enact gun-control laws as threats to the Second Amendment, a viewpoint strongly articulated at last week’s Republican National Convention by current NRA leader Chris Cox. Today’s NRA could be summed up with words uttered by the Black Panther Party 40 years earlier: “the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.”

What’s missing from all of this is the Democrats view of gun control, which is to essentially ban the private ownership of guns. Not just automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, and silencers, all three of which are mentioned in the article as bans the NRA approved of back in the 30’s. Most would agree they have no problem with this. Also, there really is no thing as a silencer, except in poorly written TV shows, books, and movies. They are suppressors. Regardless, the Democrats want more and more restrictions on private ownership of guns while at the same time they coddle actual criminals, creating a situation where law abiding citizens need weapons to protect themselves from criminality that Democrat policies have created.

A nationwide registry of owned guns? Dems can position it however they want, this is simply a way for them to know who has what as they implement confiscatory policies. It’s not paranoia when this is what they want to do. To Other People, of course. They don’t want to give up their own guns.

An assault weapons ban? The last one made no difference, and they are simply “scary” looking versions of other rifles.

Everything is aimed at the law abiding citizen, rather than criminals. If the left was serious, their “comprehensive” gun reform would go heavy on criminals. Instead, it attempts to turn law abiding citizens into criminals and/or someone with a mental issue that requires taking their guns away.

Finally, there was a point where we were not concerned with the growing power of the federal government. To quote V For Vendetta, a movie leftists love (also, a lot of the rest of us, good flick!) “People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.” Or, better yet, Thomas Jefferson “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” The people who most want to disarm citizens are the same ones trying to monumentally increase the power of government. Go figure. I mean, really, we should not infer an agenda, right? Right?

Read: The NRA Used To Totally Support Gun Restrictions They Oppose Now. Or Something »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 1, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a public pool needed to keep people cool when temperatures suddenly spike dozens of degrees, but is also bad in causing climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is NoTricksZone, with a post on four new papers that show no detectable sea level rise signal.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Oops: Suddenly, The New Yorker Is A Bit Concerned Over Executive Actions

By William Teach August 1, 2016 – 11:40 am

Yesterday, we had the Washington Post being all concerned with too much executive action. But, only if Trump wins. Not really that Obama has gone hog wild with them. Today, James Surowiecki at the New Yorker is a bit concerned

THE PERILS OF EXECUTIVE ACTION
Obama used the power of the pen to make policy. What would Trump do?

Huh. Nothing on what Hillary would do? Anyhow, it does start out with Obama’s increased unilateral power grab (which is defended later in the article), then we get

Donald Trump has made it clear that he sees Obama as having “led the way” in using executive action aggressively and that, if elected, he intends to do the same. “I’m going to do a lot of right things,” he has said, and he’s pledged to reverse many of Obama’s executive orders and memorandums “within two minutes” of taking office. Most concretely, he has promised to use his power to restrict entry to the U.S. in order to curb immigration from any country “compromised by terrorism.” In Trump’s view, that includes Germany and France. He’s also likely to step up deportation of undocumented immigrants, resurrect the Keystone XL pipeline, declare China a currency manipulator, and reopen coal leases on federal land.

Not everything Obama has done with his executive power will be as easy for Trump to overturn. Regulations that have gone through a formal rulemaking process, such as the Clean Power Plan, typically can’t just be discarded by a new incumbent. That’s why Obama’s executive agencies, like those of his predecessors, spent the final year of the Administration hurriedly initiating a host of regulatory proposals—so that the proposals could make it through the rulemaking process before Obama leaves office.

Still, were Trump to win, many of Obama’s accomplishments would be under threat. Even rules that can’t be rescinded can be left unenforced. Trump, who says that global warming is “bullshit,” has vowed to cancel the Paris Agreement. Technically, he can’t, but the deal has no enforcement mechanism, so he’d be free to just ignore the Paris goals and do nothing about greenhouse-gas emissions. And what Trump can’t reverse with his pen he can mitigate with executive-branch appointments, as Ronald Reagan did when he named the rabid anti-environmentalist James Watt to head the Department of the Interior.

And there’s the rub of the matter: what Democrats are really upset over is that Trump could use executive actions to roll back Obama’s big government actions, along with simply refusing to enforce previous rule making. They don’t care whether Hillary would continue to use lots of unilateral executive actions, because they would be helpful to their cause.

Random thought: I will never understand why Progressives/Statists/Democrats think increasing the power of the central government, along with the President and the Executive Branch, is a good idea. They never stop to think that all the negative aspects will effect themselves. They think it’s all lollipops and unicorns, and the Bad Things will happen to Other People.

Read: Oops: Suddenly, The New Yorker Is A Bit Concerned Over Executive Actions »

Posted in Donald Trump, Liberal World | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: Voters Want A Total Revolt Against Immigration

By William Teach August 1, 2016 – 8:32 am

I’m rather conflicted about this poll, too be honest. Much of it seems to be focused on legal immigration, when the focus should be on illegal immigration. But, there are some seriously interesting tidbits

(Breitbart) New polling data shows that it would be virtually impossible for Hillary Clinton to win the general election if the Republican nominee were able to frame the immigration issue in populist terms that emphasize reducing the overall amount of immigration into the country and protecting jobs, incomes, and benefits for the domestic population.

The poll was conducted by Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, in conjunction with Breitbart News Network, and surveyed a random selection of 2,010 registered voters throughout the nation.

“The poll shows that instead of dividing Americans, immigration is an issue where Americans have reached the consensus that it is a problem, maybe the problem,” said Doug Kaplan, the managing partner of Gravis Marketing.

The big problem here for Republicans, and specifically Trump, who I assume is the target to use this data, is how to nuance it to highlight the belief that reducing immigration is good without being accused of hating immigrants, much like how the Democrats attempt to shift the debate regarding illegals.

Whereas the media and Democrats try to frame the immigration issue as pitting native-born Americans against foreign-born Americans, the polling reveals that Republicans should offer a completely different framing of the issue– one which focuses on the interests of the domestic American population– and all of its members (i.e. foreign-born, native-born, etc.)–versus the interests of the world’s seven billion people that live outside the United States.

That could be dangerous, as this needs much more nuance, and Trump doesn’t do nuance well. Here are a few things the poll found (many have explanatory paragraphs, I’ll leave it to you to hit the link and read it)

  • By a nearly 6 to 1 margin, U.S. voters believe immigration should be decreased rather than increased.
  • By a 25-to-1 margin, voters believe that unemployed American workers should get preference for a U.S. job rather than a foreign worker brought in from another country.
  • Sixty one percent of voters believe that any politician, “who would rather import foreign workers to take jobs rather than give them to current U.S. residents, is unfit to hold office.”
  • Three out of four voters believe the nation needs “an immigration system that puts American workers first, not an immigration system that serves the demands of donors seeking to reduce labor costs.”
  • A majority of U.S. voters (53%) believe “record amounts of immigration into the U.S. have strained school resources and disadvantaged U.S. children.”
  • A majority of voters (55%) disagree with Hillary Clinton’s call to release illegal immigrants arriving at the border into the United States and give them a chance to apply for asylum.
  • Roughly three out of four voters— including nearly three out of four Democrat voters— believe that “instead of giving jobs and healthcare to millions of refugees from around the world, we should rebuild our inner cities and put Americans back to work.”

Now, how to frame this for what are essentially sound bite campaigns? Americans are certainly a bit upset over the number of illegals coming to the country, and have a problem with legals coming in on short work visas and taking American jobs. They also have a problem with bringing in refugees who share little to no mores with Americans, will be tough to assimilate, and may very well hold Islamic extremist views. They’ve seen the reports out of Europe, and want nothing to do with the crime, rape, sexual assaults, and terrorism, not too mention the demands that Europe cave to their extremist demands.

Read: Poll: Voters Want A Total Revolt Against Immigration »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Change Has Burst Forth To The Forefront Of The Presidential Campaign Or Somethin

By William Teach August 1, 2016 – 8:13 am

You know, like it burst forth in 2012, and 2008, and 2000. Even though almost no one is talking about it except those few who push the subject and those who push back against it.

Climate Change Divide Bursts to Forefront in Presidential Campaign

During the 2012 race for president, the issue of climate change was nearly invisible. President Obama and his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, almost never spoke about it, and it did not come up during their debates. There was far more talk of ramping up oil and gas production than cutting emissions.

Say what? Obama talked about it quite a bit.

But this year, as Hillary Clinton thrusts climate change to the heart of her campaign, the issue is taking on a prominence it has never before had in a presidential general election.

In speeches, Mrs. Clinton regularly highlights her plan to combat global warming, and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, praised her at the Democratic National Convention last week for putting it at “the center” of her foreign policy. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her main rival in the primaries, spoke of the issue forcefully, saying that “this election is about climate change.” The party platform calls for a price — essentially a tax — on carbon pollution.

If a reporter is calling it carbon pollution, then they are biased, and scientifically illiterate, much like the rest of the Cult of Climastrology. All in all, though, I doubt Hillary cares that much about the subject, beyond being one which every good Statist/Progressive should love: the ability to raise taxes, make citizens more dependent on government, and increase central governmental control over energy, the economy, and private citizens and private entities. Now that’s something Hillary would love.

Of course, the rest of the article is more about bashing Trump than providing any true evidence that this has become a major campaign issue, nor providing any scientific evidence that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by the same human activities that most Democrats/Warmists refuse to give up in their own lives.

A Gallup poll in March found that 65 percent of Americans believed that climate change was caused by human activity, an increase of 10 points from a year earlier. The poll found that 38 percent of Republicans believed the same thing, an increase of four points from a year earlier. The poll also found that 76 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 accepted that human activity is behind climate change.

And then you put that up against polls of things that actually concern Americans, and it tends to come in last or next to last. A recent YouGov poll found that only 9.2% found it to be the biggest issue. And, despite all the spreading awareness and the massive media push, government push, and money from Warmist backers, just 3% found Hotcoldwetdry to be the most important issue in a pre-Paris climate meeting poll. Heck, only 6% of Democrats listed ‘climate change’ as their biggest concern.

Again, though, the article is about bashing Trump, and even highlights those few Republicans who have bought into the beliefs of the Cult of Climastrology.

But, do you know how important this issue is? It’s not even in the paper edition of the paper. Just the web. And while it is prominently displayed on the web app, it’s just a little headline way down the full Internet page.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Climate Change Has Burst Forth To The Forefront Of The Presidential Campaign Or Somethin »

Posted in Elections, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 31, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible water park wasting water that will soon disappear in a massive drought, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pajamas Media, with a post on SJWs upset over Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman.

It’s waterpark week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach July 31, 2016 – 9:12 am

Happy Sunday! A wonderful summer day here in America, the greatest nation on Earth. This pinup is by Tatiana Doronina, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Weasel Zippers notes a mural of Hillary in a swimsuit is causing waves
  2. Virtual Mirage offers up Prog Land
  3. Victory Girls Blog has a dilemma as to whether Trump or not
  4. The Other McCain notes the flopping of the SJW Ghostbusters
  5. The Lid notes that Reverend Barber got Jesus wrong at the DNC
  6. The Last Refuge notes Hillary already cancelling campaign appearances, and the last photos will freak you out
  7. Raised On Hoecakes covers who’s more compassionate, Dems or Republicans
  8. Pamela Geller has some interesting DNC emails, where they cheer job loss
  9. Moonbattery discusses the Navy naming a ship after Harvey Milk
  10. Gates Of Vienna has another fun Muslim destroying a church
  11. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes American flags confiscated and thrown on floor at a Hillary event
  12. DaTechGuy covers Nate Silver telling Dems to panic
  13. Creeping Sharia notes Hillary’s ties to an al Qaeda fundraiser
  14. Chicks On The Right notes media silence on a KKK Grand Wizard endorsing Hillary
  15. And last, but not least, Capitalism Is Freedom notes a bikini clad cop stopping a bad guy

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Suddenly, Washington Post Is Very Concerned Over The Expanding Power Of The Presidency

By William Teach July 31, 2016 – 8:00 am

We’ve just spend 7+ years living under a president (perhaps yours, not mine) who has increased the power of the Chief Executive and the agencies which report to him by leaps and bounds. Obama has used whatever power he could take, legally or not, constitutionally or not, whenever he wants. The rule making emanating from the White House and federal agencies has been breathtaking. But, now, this is suddenly a problem. From the hoity-toity halls of the Washington Post, can you guess why? The headline says it all

Donald Trump and the expanding power of the presidency

The web front page headline reads “Today’s presidency offers almost unchecked power, enabling a potential Trump administration.” Obviously, this is all about Trump using the power of the presidency, as expanded by many presidents, without really noting that a) Obama has done more than any modern president, and b) Hillary would do much the same. Though, whether she would blow off Congress, even those in her own party, as Obama has done is up for question

Donald Trump has promised not only to be the voice of the American people but also to take decisive, immediate action. As president, he has said he would move fast to destroy the Islamic State, scrap bad trade deals, build that wall, “stop the gangs and the violence,” and “stop the drugs from pouring into our communities.” He would “immediately suspend immigration” from countries where terrorism is rampant. He might even defy treaty obligations and decline to aid NATO allies.

The Republican nominee has led some to conclude that he intends a sweeping expansion of presidential authority. His rhetoric implies a muscular, almost unitary, presidency that would be at least as expansive as what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. famously dubbed the “imperial presidency” — his critique of Richard Nixon’s abuse of power in the era of Watergate and Vietnam.

But scholars of the presidency say that Barack Obama, George W. Bush and their predecessors have added so many powers to the White House toolbox that a President Trump could fulfill many of his promises legally — and virtually unchecked by a Congress that has proven incapable of mustering much pushback for decades .

Interesting. Hillary has made lots of promises to Do Things: why does this not apply to her? Candidates make all sorts of promises during election season. Suddenly, Donald’s are Bad. Like Hitler bad

Trump’s critics hear his sweeping promises as the words of a classic strongman, a ruler who seems prepared to push aside the cobwebs of bureaucracy and the checks and balances of American federalism to produce instant, decisive action. Critics have compared him to Mussolini, Hitler, Vladi­mir Putin, Saddam Hussein and Argentina’s Juan Perón. Trump has praised Putin and Hussein for being tough on terrorism. In the past, Trump has singled out China’s crackdown against pro-democracy activists in Tiananmen Square in 1989 as a demonstration of “the power of strength.”

Of course they do. Why not Hillary, though? For that matter, what about Obama, who has, furthermore, use and/or allowed federal agencies to target and abuse private citizens and groups that oppose him? Does that not bear the marks of a classic strongman?

The long article continues in its concern that a president Trump (not a president Hillary, mind you, because she’s a Democrat) would become an uber-unilateral president, forgoing Congress. Without mentioning Obama doing exactly that.

If a president does overstep his authority, Congress could cut off his funding or impeach him, but a President Trump could counter with the power of the bully pulpit.

Huh. When the GOP attempted to do this to Obama, Democrats and their media Comrades screamed bloody murder.

But Devins has concluded that the record of the past two decades shows that Congress “lacks both the will and the way to check the presidency.

“Today’s system of checks and balances,” he said , “is an abject failure.”

Suddenly, liberals are concerned about this. Where was the concern the past 7+ years? We know the answer.

But, let’s be clear: this expansion of power is a bad thing. While I certainly have a concern with Trump’s Big Government leanings, what’s wrong with rolling back federal regulations enacted by executive actions? He could hamstring much of Obamacare while simply following the law. He could eliminate the Contraception mandate, the work rules requirements, all the IRS positions created to fine citizens, and so much more. He could roll back the EPA’s ‘climate change’ rules, such as the Clean Power Plan, along with the dictatorial Waters Of The US plan. Negate the Paris climate accord and Iran deal. He could simply use the power of the presidency to enforce the law on illegal aliens.

But, article Marc Fisher does sorta make a good point earlier in the fable

Some Trump initiatives, such as repealing the Affordable Care Act, cutting taxes or expanding Social Security, would require extensive, close work with Congress. But presidents already have the power to do much of what Trump has proposed. Congress has given the president the authority to negotiate trade deals, for example, and Trump could try to renegotiate the nuclear deal with Iran.

I’ve beaten on this subject before, the notion that Congress crafts legislation that is entirely too broad, which allows the Executive Branch to create rules and regulation, which carry the force of law to the point of criminal and civil penalties against private citizens and entities, out of seemingly thin air. For instance, there is not one instance where the words “sterilization” and “contraception” appear in the Patient Protection (snicker) and Affordable (snicker) Care Act, nor any mention of abortifacients in an manner. This was created out of thin air by HHS. The bill was so big and broad that things can almost be done at will. The Environmental Protection Act was a very good idea. It has since been expanded by the EPA and other agencies to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean.

This is the case for so much legislation, which is often so broad that the Executive Office can find a rationale for doing as they will at will. Legislation, when passed, should be specific with no wiggle room. Deal with the specific subject, and, if the POTUS wants more, he/she should come to Congress and provide the reason why, along with a plan that includes things like implementation, who is in charge, and the expected results. It is the role of the Executive Office to enforce law as passed by Congress, not create it themselves. If the legislation isn’t specific, it gives the EO the ability to take power.

And, while we’re at it, repeal the 17th Amendment and institute term limits on Congress.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Suddenly, Washington Post Is Very Concerned Over The Expanding Power Of The Presidency »

Posted in Liberal World | 29 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove