Daily Insanity

Another collection of what poses as deliberative thought and rational posits, but is the usual dissonant thinking rampant in today’s political milieu.
Do you wonder why either nothing is accomplished or the result is dystopia, a condition found in any Progressive attempt at logic.

Consider this bit of welcoming jabbering to start off the new Congress and Presidency. The politics of color brings this to you.

House Democrat: Our Party Is Just Too Nice When We’re In Control And I Won’t Work With Trump

Well, if there’s one Democrat President-elect Donald Trump can dispense with offering an olive branch, Rep. Maxine Water (D-CA) is the one. On Monday, she told MSNBC’s Jacob Soboroff that she would a) never accept an invitation to sit down with Trump to work on an issue in which they found common ground; and b) didn’t think that incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) should work with Trump where he could either. She also said that the Democratic Party is too nice when they’re in power to work with people. [snip]

No, absolutely. I do not agree. I tell you that been a problem in my party that when we are in power, we are nice. We bend over backwards to work with people,” Waters said. “Trump has stepped on everybody. He has no respect for his own colleagues, let alone those on the opposite side of the aisle.”

Waters continued by asking why she or Democrats should trust Trump when “he’ll tell you more thing today and another thing tomorrow.”

“I have no intention of pretending everything is alright and that we are going to work together. For me, as the ranking member of the Financial Service Committee, where he said he’s going to bring down Dodd-Frank and he’s going to get rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am going to fight him every inch of the way,” Waters said.

[snip]

This idiot gets reelected by running on the Black Party section of the Jackass Party. After reading and hearing those words falling out of her mouth, is their any wonder why those clowns lost as heavily as they did?

Anyone wondering how the brain dead would act only need to follow this tale to the ugly finish.

As Socialism Shattered Venezuela, The Useful Idiots Applauded

When the Cold War ended 25 years ago, the Soviet Union vanished into the ash heap of history. That left the West’s “useful idiots” — Lenin’s term for the ideologues and toadies who could always be relied on to justify or praise whatever Moscow did — in search of other socialist thugs to fawn over. Many found a new heartthrob in Hugo Chavez, the anti-Yanqui rabble-rouser who was elected president of Venezuela in 1998, and in short order had transformed the country from a successful social democracy into a grim and corrupt autocracy.

An avowed Marxist and protégé of Fidel Castro, Chavez gradually seized control of every lever of state power in Venezuela. The constitution was rewritten to strip the legislature and judiciary of their independence, authorize censorship of the press, and allow Chavez to legislate by decree. Before long the government acquired a stranglehold over the economy, including the huge and profitable energy sector. (Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world.)

With petrodollars pouring in, Chavez had free rein to put his statist prescriptions into effect. The so-called “Bolivarian revolution” over which he — and later his handpicked successor, Nicolas Maduro — presided, was an unfettered, real-world example of anticapitalist socialism in action. Venezuela since at least the 1970s had been Latin America’s most affluent nation. Now it was a showpiece for command-and-control economics: price and currency controls, wealth redistribution, ramped-up government spending, expropriation of farmland, and the nationalization of private banks, mines, and oil companies.

And the useful idiots ate it up.

In a Salon piece titled “Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle,” David Sirota declared that the Venezuelan ruler, with his “full-throated advocacy of socialism,” had “racked up an economic record that … American president[s] could only dream of achieving.” The Guardian offered “Three cheers for Chavez.” Moviemaker Oliver Stone filmed a documentary gushing over “the positive changes that have happened economically in all of South America” because of Venezuela’s socialist government. And when Chavez died in 2013, Jimmy Carter extolled the strongman for “improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen.”

In the real world, however, socialism has transformed Venezuela into a Third World dystopia. [snip]

You can ask any one of them to explain what happened and you will get the boilerplate response: It is _________ fault. (Fill in the hated one of the day) Never is it the fault of the leaders, of Socialism. Kind of what Hillary or Obama say when their plans go awry.

Following the crazy thinking from above we get this nuttiness from Obama!

Obama’s exit interview: I could’ve won again

Arguing that Americans still subscribe to his vision of progressive change, President Barack Obama asserted in an interview recently he could have succeeded in this year’s election if he was eligible to run.
“I am confident in this vision because I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it,” Obama told his former senior adviser David Axelrod in an interview for the “The Axe Files” podcast, produced by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and CNN. [snip]

Are you not glad Obama ‘splained’ that to you? Never would have known how great a President he could have been, if he was given a third term.

Here is a delightful quandary for that pair of Marxist, no-good frauds that hangs both out to dry. There is no good answer for either choice impugns one or both in some manner.

Will Obama pardon Clinton? And if he does, will she accept?

Executive orders barring offshore drilling in most U.S. Arctic waters; an abstention at the U.N. permitting the Security Council to declare all Israeli settlement activity to be illegal and an obstacle to peace; the possibility of further action at the U.N. to formalize the administration’s comprehensive vision of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict — President Obama is sprinting, not jogging, to the finish line.
In dashing through his last few weeks in office, will one of Obama’s final acts be to pardon Hillary Clinton for any violations of federal law she might have committed while she was secretary of State?

It’s an interesting and complex question.

We should first note that the Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute Clinton would not bind the Trump administration. Until relevant statutes of limitations have expired, she could still be prosecuted by the new administration. It is possible, in my opinion, for Clinton to be prosecuted for either her improper handling of classified information on her “home brew” email server or allegations of “pay to play” arrangements between the secretary of State and donors to the Clinton Foundation, which could constitute bribery.

The statute of limitations for most federal crimes is five years from the commission of the offense; that would apply to the two categories relevant to Clinton. Her tenure as secretary of State ended Feb. 1, 2013, so it is possible that the statute of limitations will not run until Feb. 1, 2018, more than a year after Donald Trump takes office.

What looks like one question — will the president pardon Clinton? — turns out, on analysis, to be two. The first question is: Would Clinton wish to receive a pardon?

That question seems to be a proverbial no-brainer. Surely, any person who had been in federal government would be eager to receive a presidential pardon, because it eliminates even the possibility of federal prosecution. That looks like all upside and no downside.

But there is a downside, and it isn’t trivial. A pardon must be accepted by the person who is pardoned if it is to effectively stymie any prosecution.

Furthermore, there is solid legal precedent that acceptance of a pardon is equivalent to confession of guilt. A U.S. Supreme Court case from 1915 called Burdick v. U.S. establishes that principle; it has never been overturned. [snip]

If Clinton decides that, everything considered, she would prefer to receive a pardon, she would no doubt be able to convey that message to Obama, and then the ball would be in his court. Thus, the second question is: Would Obama grant Clinton’s request for a pardon?

From Obama’s perspective, the decision to grant or withhold a pardon is a political and a personal one. Legal considerations do not directly arise.

Like all presidents at the end of their terms, he is concerned about the legacy he leaves for history. Does he want his legacy to include a pardon of the secretary of State who served under him during the entirety of his first term in office?

Because acceptance of a pardon amounts to a confession of guilt, the acceptance by Clinton would, to a degree, besmirch both Clinton and also Obama. After all, Clinton was Obama’s secretary of State. If she was committing illegal acts as secretary, it happened literally on his watch.

On the other hand, if the new administration were to prosecute and convict Clinton of crimes committed while she was secretary, that might be an even greater embarrassment for Obama post-presidency. [snip]

Oh yes, this is a yummy situation. There are always consequences to one’s actions. Unavoidable, they are.
Not always are the effects felt immediately, but they will later or sooner, erupt especially when you need it to show the least.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: