Robert Mueller is still testifying to the Congressional Judicial Committee. Representative Nadler started out well by getting Mr. Mueller to state that he did not (as President Trump has stated) exonerate the President.
It went down hill from there. Mr. Mueller looks like a deer in headlights. Imagine the impeachment proceedings with Mr. Mueller as the lead witness.
Mr. Mueller performance leads one to believe that he does not know the basic facts of the investigation that he led. He appears very incompetent. Who was in charge of the investigation?
Mr. Mueller established bounds on what he would testify to and when convenient, he violated the bounds and, also when convenient, invoked the bounds. He made statements contrary to his written report and when alerted to such contradictions, simply stated that the report is correct.
Today's testimony will finally put the Russian-Collusion-Delusion and the obstruction of justice matter to bed. (BTW, I used "matter" on advise from a former AG.) There is no there there and there is no prosecutor riding in on a white horse to save the Democrats. And, ironically, that will be good for the Democrats. Mr. Mueller's performance will save the Democrats from themselves by putting an end to an impeachment.
I apologize to Mr. Mueller for this harsh reporting. He is a great American that has served his country with distinction. We should all thank him for his service. His problem with this situation is that his skills are no longer what they once were. Mr. Mueller should be forgiven for this current wrongdoing and remembered for his previous, great service.
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
Saturday, July 6, 2019
Why the Census Citizenship Question Matters
The question is at the core of America’s political divide.
San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia and hundreds more cities have adopted sanctuary policies that have attracted masses of illegal immigrants to their localities. Now it is census time in America and President Trump wants to include a citizenship question on the census. Of course, the sanctuary cities (and Democrats in general) oppose the question.
Without the question, illegal immigrants are more likely to complete and return their census forms. If citizenry identification is not required, all will be assumed to be citizens. Without the question, illegal immigrants will be less likely to complete the census form. And, those that do (honestly) will not cause Congressional representation to be redistributed.
Not including the citizenship question, results in an advantage to those supporting sanctuary policies in violation of federal law. Not only will voting power in Congress be tilted toward sanctuary policies via increased representation of sanctuary areas, but local governments that support sanctuary policies will obtain additional funding (at a cost to law abiding, non-sanctuary cities).
If local, elected officials want to establish costly sanctuary policies, then the local governments should pay for the policies with increased taxation of their local citizen-taxpayers. Americans in a red state like Alabamans should not pay for the sanctuary policies of San Francisco. If sanctuary-citizen-residents had to foot the bill for their sanctuary policies (without federal funding), it is likely that they would not continue their support at the levels they do with Uncle Sam's funding. We should give them the chance to put their money where their mouth is. The citizenry question should be on the census form.
Many illegal immigrants claim to be fleeing the lawlessness of their home countries. Why should we allow the lawlessness of sanctuary cities be rewarded with more political power and federal funds to further promote lawlessness?
San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia and hundreds more cities have adopted sanctuary policies that have attracted masses of illegal immigrants to their localities. Now it is census time in America and President Trump wants to include a citizenship question on the census. Of course, the sanctuary cities (and Democrats in general) oppose the question.
Without the question, illegal immigrants are more likely to complete and return their census forms. If citizenry identification is not required, all will be assumed to be citizens. Without the question, illegal immigrants will be less likely to complete the census form. And, those that do (honestly) will not cause Congressional representation to be redistributed.
Not including the citizenship question, results in an advantage to those supporting sanctuary policies in violation of federal law. Not only will voting power in Congress be tilted toward sanctuary policies via increased representation of sanctuary areas, but local governments that support sanctuary policies will obtain additional funding (at a cost to law abiding, non-sanctuary cities).
If local, elected officials want to establish costly sanctuary policies, then the local governments should pay for the policies with increased taxation of their local citizen-taxpayers. Americans in a red state like Alabamans should not pay for the sanctuary policies of San Francisco. If sanctuary-citizen-residents had to foot the bill for their sanctuary policies (without federal funding), it is likely that they would not continue their support at the levels they do with Uncle Sam's funding. We should give them the chance to put their money where their mouth is. The citizenry question should be on the census form.
Many illegal immigrants claim to be fleeing the lawlessness of their home countries. Why should we allow the lawlessness of sanctuary cities be rewarded with more political power and federal funds to further promote lawlessness?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)