Category: Legislative Branch

Budget, Legislative Branch, Trump January 1, 2019January 1, 2019

Welcome 2019 Tweets from American Leaders

With such a heated ending to 2018 (#TrumpShutdown, Mattis resignation, and dismissal of 83 complaints against Kavanaugh), it’s important to note how 2019 began so we can reference it down the road. It seems the following is how every single day in 2019 will play out (several leaders took a hiatus from Twitter during the holidays, Mitch McConnell for one):

Happy New Year, Everyone!

Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, Russia, Trump December 28, 2018January 11, 2019

Trump’s Alarming New “Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office”

What is the renaming of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office really about?

Mysteriously, on Friday 21 December 2018 – a tsunami news day following Defense Secretary Mattis’ abrupt resignation, and his chilling resignation letter being shared with the American public, followed by Congress and Trump’s intense battle over border security and funding the wall, which resulted in the entire country waiting with baited breath to see if the government would shutdown, which it did – there was a seeming innocuous little Trump tweet mixed in with all this high drama.

This announcement deals with the most perilous of all subject matters, nuclear weapons, and can only be processed with a giant question mark.

The original Domestic Nuclear Detection Office reads like a fully integrated, multi-level massive program that has been fine-tuned over the past 16 years.

The new H.R. 7213 bill is very simple and direct and not a bill that anyone would necessarily pause and analyze. It’s presented as an office name change, just as Trump’s tweet indicates.

However, the link trump included in his tweet, with an official “Statement by the President,” dated Friday 21 December 2018, is anything but simple and direct. Trump’s abnormal letter leaves one to wonder whether this bizarre verbiage is being crafted as a counter strategy for Trump’s intense anti-Mueller, anti-Dem animus.

What does Trump mean when he declares, “My administration will treat this provision as advisory. I hope that consultation will be possible, and I recognize the benefits of working with congress on the ‘Securing the Cities’ program. Nevertheless, the Act’s mandatory consultation provision is not consistent with the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

Huh? What is Trump talking about?

Does this Presidential Statement carry any weight? Is it legally binding? It reads like a major power usurpation. In the original Domestic Nuclear Detection Office program, there’s no mention at all of the president being included in the decision making.

Further, the Presidential Statement goes on to state: “Section 2(g)(6) of the Act purports to require the Secretary of Homeland Security annually to provide a report to the Congress that includes recommendations for any necessary statutory changes regarding the CWMD Office, or, if no statutory changes are deemed necessary, an explanation of that conclusion. My administration will treat this provision in a manner consistent with Article II, section 3 of the Constitution, which provides the President the discretion to recommend to the Congress only ‘such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.’”

Trump’s Presidential Statement blatantly ignores Article 1, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates, “The Congress shall have the Power to… provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” This is common knowledge and has been referenced often during Trump’s presidency.

Unfathomably, Article II, section 3 is nothing more than an outline of how the Electoral vote determines the winner of a presidential election and thus clearly has no bearing on this subject matter.

This tweet seems like another “Severe” CODE RED warning to the American public, particularly Dems and the Mueller team. It actually reads like a threat.

Legislative Branch, National Security, Trump December 24, 2018December 24, 2018

Dem’s Innovative Border Security Plan

The Democrats have proposed a very sophisticated, efficient, and economical security plan that will bring us forward in successfully accomplishing the mission of stronger security along our Southern border. President Trump apparently refuses to consider these innovative ideas.

We’re all familiar with the invisible fence created for our pets; these have existed for decades, ever since it was invented in 1973. The infinitesimal expense – especially when compared to the cost of a stone or concrete wall lining residential property, or even a wooden fence for that matter – in addition to the aesthetic advantages, have made invisible fences a very successful consumer product.

Ranchers have also been resourceful in coming up with innovative solutions in containing cattle and horses; and farmers are very creative in their methods of keeping predators away from crops. For example:

Invisible fence for Cattle – all that’s required are two components, the charger and the fence wire
Guard animals – Many farmers rely on guard animals to keep predators away from crops, examples: llamas, donkeys and dogs

With these proven solutions in mind, it makes sense that many lawmakers are thinking along these line for our Southern border. The options currently being floated by the Democrats, some of which were outlined by Senator Durbin on Meet the Press December 23, 2018 include:

Fund the Z Portal to dramatically increase the scanning of trucks and cars coming across border, we currently only screen approximately one out of five cars and trucks
Integrated Fixed Towers (IFT) system, “with radar, day and night cameras, and thermals imaging” to monitor thousands of miles of border; used along the border between Israel and Palestine
Predator Drone Aircraft, certain areas along the border in Texas are currently using this type of equipment for monitoring the border that the military brought back from Afghanistan

There are clearly many technological advancements that make border control much more simple and more advanced than the medieval stone wall of the 14th century that Trump is demanding.

Climate Change, Environment, Legislative Branch, Mitch McConnell, Senate December 22, 2018July 11, 2019

McConnell Most Responsible for Climate Change

Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell was first elected to the United States Senate in 1984. After serving five terms, he was re-elected to a sixth in 2014. He steadily rose the ranks to various leadership positions:

National Republican Senatorial Committee | 1998 – 2000
Majority Whip | 2003 – 2005, 108th Congress
Minority Leader | 2006 – 2014
Majority Leader | 2014 – present

The global temperature in 1984, when McConnell was first elected, was 14.10 Celsius / 57.38 Fahrenheit. During the thirty-four years since then, the global temperature has risen to approximately 14.8 Celsius / 58.64 Fahrenheit, more than half of one full degree. Numerous urgent international global warming warnings have spanned the past three plus decades; McConnell was present for every single one of these. In his leadership capacity, McConnell had the unmistakable, repeated opportunity to rally support and Legislative action to curb the rise in global temperature, but he chose to shun responsibility, bury his head in the sand and aggressively promote the fossil fuel industry. His campaigns have received a stunning $2,151,444 from Oil & Gas industries.

Timeline of Global Warming Warnings During McConnell’s Tenure in the Senate:

1985 – Villach Conference | Consensus amongst experts, global warming inevitable, calls on governments to “consider international agreements to take action to restrict emissions”
1987 – Montreal Protocol of the Vienna Convention | “imposes international restrictions on emissions of ozone-destroying gases”
1988 – Toronto Conference | “calls for strict, specific limits on greenhouse gas emissions; UK Prime Minister Thatcher is first major leader to call for action”
1989 – Global Climate Coalition established | created by “fossil-fuel and other U.S. industries to tell politicians and the public that climate science is too uncertain to justify action”
1990 – First IPCC Report | “world has been warming and future warming is likely”
1992 – Rio de Janeiro Conference | “produces UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but U.S. blocks calls for serious action”
1995 – Second IPCC Report | “detects ‘signature’ of human-caused greenhouse effect warming”
1997 – Kyoto Protocol | “setting targets for industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (rejected by U.S. senate in advance)”
2000 – Global Climate Coalition dissolves | “as many corporations grapple with threat of warming, but Oil lobby convinces U.S. administration to deny problem”
2001 – Third IPCC Report | “global warming, unprecedented since the end of the last ice age, is ‘very likely,’ with highly damaging future impacts”
2004 – “First major books, movie, and art work featuring global warming appear”
2005 – Kyoto Treaty | “signed by major industrial nations except U.S.”
2006 – “An Inconvenient Truth” documentary | “persuades many but sharpens polarization”
2007 – Fourth IPCC Report | “warns that serious effects of warming have become evident”
2009 – Copenhagen Conference | “fails to negotiate binding agreements,” hopes fade of “avoiding dangerous future climate change”
2015 – Paris Agreement | 196 nations/state parties “pledge to set targets for their own greenhouse gas dust and to report their progress” | McConnell sends letter “urging states not to comply with EPA’s Clean Power Plan”
2017 – McConnell succeeds at urging Trump to pull United States out of Paris Agreement
2018 – Katowice Climate Change Conference COP24 | “leaders reach deal bolstering Paris Agreement,” but not United States, “U.S. held event promoting fossil fuels“

In a stunning rebuke of the 800 million people across the globe who are impacted by global warming, McConnell has consistently corralled his senate colleagues, and now the current president, to maintain staunch opposition to the science behind the global warming warnings. Despite the scientific facts, and the yearly physical proof that climate change is a reality, McConnel persists at denying the research and guidance of experts, and plows forward with legislating in conflict with the damaging impact of climate change reality.

Unfortunately, McConnell’s thirty-four years representing Kentucky in DC have not proven to be a career of public service, but rather of self-service. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, and many millions are at stake.

Judicial Branch, Legislative Branch, Supreme Court December 18, 2018December 24, 2019

Is Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Legitimate?

Immediately following Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation on October 6, 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts passed along 83 judicial misconduct complaints filed against Brett Kavanaugh to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado. These ethics complaints included: false statements while under oath, political bias, lack of judicial temperament, treating the Senate Judiciary Committee with disrespect, as well as several miscellaneous complaints.

Chief Circuit Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed all of the complaints in his Order today, dated December 18, 2018.

Tymkovich’s grounds for dismissal were based on jurisdiction whereby he claims that Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court Judge, and Tymkovich only has authority to resolve complaints concerning the potential misconduct of “covered judges”
Covered Judges include: “a circuit judge, district judge, bankruptcy judge, or magistrate judge”

This all seems a bit fuzzy considering the facts that:

Kavanaugh’s misconduct occurred before he was confirmed to the Supreme Court; if these complaints had to be reviewed before Kavanaugh was confirmed, the vote for confirmation should have been put on hold in order for the complaints to be processed appropriately; it now appears that the GOP rammed the vote through the senate at break-neck speed for this specific purpose… creating a loophole that would protect Kavanaugh from accountability
Chief Justice John Roberts deemed that Tymkovich did have jurisdiction which is why Roberts sent the complaints to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals after Kavanaugh was confirmed, or was this a ruse?
Tymkovich denies or dismisses virtually all judicial misconduct complaints; he appears to use a template for the majority of his dismissals and denials;
If we’re shocked by the stunning dismissal of Kavanugh’s misconduct, we should be even more appalled by Tymkovich’s dismissal of the misconduct complaint filed against DC Circuit Judge Richard W. Roberts on July 28, 2017.
Back at the beginning of his legal career, while prosecuting a case in Salt Lake City, Utah, Roberts “raped” 16 year old injured witness Terry Mitchell “nearly every day for a several weeks.” Following this successful trial outcome, Roberts was soon promoted to Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York where he worked under Rudy Giuliani. Onward and upward until he was nominated to the United States District Court in DC in 1998.

Fuzzy judicial orders like Tymkovich’s today, clearly undermine the rule of law. The fact that this is one of a tremendous number of Tenth Circuit Court Of Appeals misconduct decisions that get dismissed or denied, is nauseating. Is the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals legitimate? If judges can create a system where they’re never accountable for their misdeeds, yet have the ability to dramatically alter the lives, the fortunes and the destinies of the American public, creating thousands and thousands of victims… it’s an alarming injustice. And it’s unconstitutional.

In light of the fact that Chief Circuit Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has deemed these 83 judicial misconduct complaints filed against Brett Kavanaugh as “serious,” and the legal definition of serious equates to felony, and the world is fully aware of the Republican leadership’s mission to rush Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote to the floor in order to create the beneficial loophole for Kavanaugh, it’s very clear there’s enough evidence to impeach Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court until these complaints can be properly reviewed.