Year End Reflections, Part I

Identity Politics. A Katrina Trinko had a piece in the 12/19/18 USA Today. Citing Yale and Princeton researchers, she wrote "researchers found that it's conservatives, not liberals, who treat everyone the same." Then, quoting Yale Insights, this: "Liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner." I could have told the author that. Liberals tend to believe minorities cannot achieve on their own without government assistance.

Moving? If so, you may be interested in knowing what states people are moving to. According to the 12/19/18 USA Today, Texas gained the most people in 2017 - 379,128. Florida was next with 322,128. Rounding out the top five are California with 157,696 people, Arizona with 122,720, and North Carolina with 112,820. Three more Western states were in the next five: number 6 Washington with 110,159 people, number 8 Colorado with 79,662, and number 10 Nevada with 61,987. Texas and Florida, two states that remain conservative, have by large margins gained the most people.

Civil Forfeiture. The 11/30/18 Wall Street Journal editorial discussed a recently heard case at the Supreme Court, Timbs vs. Indiana. While the facts in the case are not very favorable to Timbs, the issue of when the government may seize someone's property is extremely important. The issue is when do takings under civil forfeiture constitute excessive fines and therefore violate the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The problem is that state and local governments have increasingly turned to civil forfeiture as a means of raising revenue. During oral argument, The Journal tells us that "Justice Stephen Breyer asked Indiana's solicitor general whether someone caught driving five miles an hour above the speed limit could be forced to forfeit his Bugatti, Mercedes or Ferrari."

Socialism. Oh, you wanted to know what the solicitor general of Indiana answered Justice Breyer. Did you have any doubt? Yes, he said, the government could take your very expensive car because you slightly exceeded the speed limit. Government, big government, has an unending appetite for revenue - aka your money. California is thinking of taxing text messages. Back to socialism. A letter to the editor in the 12/4/18 Ventura County Star was written by a young voter. "We want a living wage, health care, clean air and water, and an education without being punished for doing so. If you do not support these things, then us young people will not vote for you." We want? I never thought that way, as I was not taught that way. I'm guessing many young people never heard of "rugged individualism."

The President's tax returns. In a letter to the editor in the 12/14/18 USA Today, we are told that "Congress should enact a law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns before they can run for office...we deserve full and complete transparency before we decide on a candidate." I am curious as to what a candidate's tax returns tells me about their likely policies. Furthermore, Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution sets forth who is eligible to hold the office of president. It would likely require a Constitutional amendment to add the further requirement of disclosing tax returns. After all, an Amendment (the 22nd) was needed to limit a President to terms.

George H. W. Bush. The former President (41) died on 11/30/18 at the age of 94. The 12/2/18 LA Times had this headline: "A patriot and servant." The 12/2/18 New York Times headline was "A Genial Force in American Politics." In a special section that day, The New York Times led with "A Genial President Who Guided the Nation to the End of the Cold War." The 12/6/18 USA Today had this headline: "A Great, Noble Man." I recall similarly flattering things being said upon the death of John McCain. I get that it is considered declasse to speak poorly of the dead. However, I just get the feeling that the only Republicans the mainstream media respects are dead ones.

Mueller vs. Flynn

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was President Trump's incoming National Security Adviser. As such, it would not be improper for him to be speaking to foreign officials. On January 24, 2017, former FBI Director James Comey sent two agents into the White House of the four day old Trump Administration to interview General Flynn. Comey told the MSNBC audience how proud of himself he was, because sending in agents to the White House is "something I probably wouldn't have done or wouldn't have gotten away with in a more organized administration." You see, the agents knew Flynn had spoken with the Russian ambassador. Whether the FBI or NSA picked up Flynn's conversations, the name of a US citizen should not be "unmasked" without some good national security concern. The Obama Administration was not concerned with that.

A few comments on the above. Four days into the Trump Administration Comey was already after Trump. His own comments reflect that he knew he was "getting away" with something. Even if not illegal, he knew it was clearly improper. But Comey has demonstrated his propensity for improper behavior previously. After all, instead of reporting the FBI's findings on the Hillary Clinton investigation to Attorney General Lynch, who had the responsibility of deciding whether or not to prosecute, Comey, not the prosecutor, took it upon himself to close down the investigation and decide there would be no prosecution. Then there was Comey's leak of his written memos of conversations with Trump to friend and Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, in order to get the information leaked to the press and get a special counsel appointed. It was hardly a surprise that Comey's colleague and good friend, Robert Mueller, was appointed the special counsel.

The memos in question had to do with Trump asking if Comey could "let this go" with regards to Flynn. When Flynn met with those FBI agents he either forgot (questionable) or lied about speaking with the Russian ambassador. Which means, if he lied, he lied about something that was not illegal. When Comey testified before the Senate he was asked why he didn't just tell Trump that it was improper to ask the FBI Director to let it go. Comey: "If I were stronger, I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took it in...maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance." Trump was neither a lawyer nor a politician. Just how difficult would it have been to explain the impropriety to a new President? (Then again, Comey's boss A.G. Lynch, was not strong enough to tell Bill Clinton it was improper for him to be speaking with her in private on the tarmac in Phoenix, while she was investigating his wife.) Or, maybe Comey has repeatedly demonstrated his desire to "get" the President, rather than help a non-politician new President understand the process.

Flynn talking to the Russian Ambassador was not illegal. Lying to the FBI is illegal. The issue with Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador is that Flynn was not yet the National Security Adviser. The conversation occurred during the transition period when Obama was still in office. The Logan Act of 1799 (date not a typo) makes it criminal to have unauthorized negotiations with foreign governments. A total of two (2) people have been indicted for a violation of the Act - in 1802 and 1852. Neither was convicted. More recently, John Kerry as a former Secretary of State, took it upon himself to speak with foreign leaders in order to try to save the Iran nuclear deal. There was Kerry, then a private citizen, undermining the official policy of the United States of America. He could have/should have been prosecuted. But he was not. No, that was reserved for Flynn, a Trump associate. Hillary Clinton could have/should have been prosecuted. But she was not. Nor has Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe or James Comey.

As for Flynn, the Wall Street Journal reported that "Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to avoid bankruptcy and spare his son from becoming a legal target." Frankly, I am sickened by the entire Mueller investigation. But let me be clear. I opposed the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings. He had two years left in his term. He was elected to that office. I objected to Trump saying "lock her up" with regards to Hilary Clinton. Impeachment should be rarely used. Prosecution of high government officials should also be rare. So, what are you saying, Mike? That government officials are more important than the rest of us? That they are above the law? No. I am saying that I do not want to see this great country degenerate into a third world style government - where people on the outs are either imprisoned, exiled or worse. The political divide between the two parties is as bad as any of us can recall. The Democrats and the Left have wanted Trump out of office since Trump was inaugurated. So, the next time a Democrat gets elected to the office of president with a Republican Congress, that person gets impeached? Or indicted?

I'm kind of old fashioned. I prefer that people who win presidential elections (absent death or resignation) be able to serve out their full term. Or, maybe we can go with coup d'etats - if not violent ones, then through special counsel. Because that is exactly what is happening now.