Advertisements

Category Archives: government

There is no treason!

Stop it. Just stop it! 

I get it. You hate Trump. You think he never should have been elected. You think he’s a terrible president, completely unsuited for the White House, and this latest revelation that he shared sensitive information provided to the United States by the Israelis to the Russians confirms your assertion that he is dangerous and should never be trusted with classified information. 

I get it. The glaring hypocrisy of Republicans cheering as former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn led chants of “lock her up!” at the Republican National Convention last year for her spilling classified SAP information on unclassified email (something he inappropriately did himself in 2010 without authorization), even as they defend the current revelation about the information provided to the Russians, is a bit much. 

But let’s get something straight here: it’s NOT treason!

Stop screaming “TREASON” from the rooftops. It shows you don’t have a clue about the legal definition of the word, and it shows your lack of understanding about how classified information is released and declassified.

My friend Charlie Martin a few days ago correctly explained the meaning of “treason” as described in the Constitution. 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Not a single report asserts that the President did any of this. He certainly did not levy war against the United States, and he certainly did not give aid and comfort to the enemy. 

He met with high-level officials from a country that’s admittedly an adversary, as is his prerogative as the leader of this country. We are not at war with Russia, even though we’ve certainly seen references to Cold War 2.0. And let’s remember one very important fact:

THE PRESIDENT IS THE ULTIMATE CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY. As the Supreme Court ruled in 1988 in Department of the Navy vs. Egan, “His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President...” 

Don’t believe me? Read the 2009 Executive Order 13526

Technically and legally Trump did nothing “improper.” The White House said as much, and that is a fact. He did not reveal sources and methods, and he did not endanger any military operations. 

Depending on what kind of information was revealed, it was likely ill advised, and it was probably obvious where it came from. It could damage our intelligence-sharing relationships. Reports are that the sensitive information about an ISIS laptop plot came from the Israelis, and that they’re not happy about the President’s unilateral decision to share it with Russia. 

The Israeli Ambassador, however, publicly lauded his country’s relationship with the United States. Fact is we just don’t know what kind of impact this will have on our relationships with other nations’ intelligence services – and won’t, because we will never know what they won’t share. 

We do know that in the era of WikiLeaks and Snowden and Manning, our own intelligence agencies are more loath to share information among themselves – one of the problems highlighted in the 9-11 Commission’s report. I can’t imagine our allies won’t have similar concerns. Manning’s leaks certainly impacted our efforts in Afghanistan and endangered lives. 

I can see our allies’ logic if they do decide to limit the information they share: the United States can’t even keep a pissant, sniveling private from bringing a Lady Gaga CD into a SCIF and copying classified information, and their President just casually drops sensitive information to an adversary; why should we trust them to safeguard ours?

That said, your puerile screeching about treason makes you sound like uninformed dolts, and the fact that he is legally authorized to release and declassify information, makes his conversation – no matter how ill advised – is not an impeachable offense. 

The more you vomit about reason and impeachment in this case, the more you sabotage your own credibility. 

So just STOP IT!

Advertisements

You might be a Trumpanzee

Last year I explained the difference between a normal Republican/conservative voter and a Trumpanzee – the shit-flinging, frothing, simians, who have no concept of policy, objectivity, or common sense, and who simply toss turds at anyone who voices disagreement, concern, or even doesn’t display enough love and adoration for the President.

…not the normal Trump supporters, or those who voted for him merely to keep the C-Hag out of the White House – but the smirking, shit-flinging chimps who think Trump can do no wrong, claim that any criticism of their deity means you’re a Hillary supporter, and insist on doing their smarmy little happy dance by rubbing their “victory” in the faces of the #nevertrumpers (those who chose not to vote for Trump), chortling about us eating crow or gnashing our teeth in bitter angst.

These are the same puerile shit swaddlers who called those of us who are ostensibly ideological allies “idiots” and “tacit Hillary supporters,” due to our refusal to worship at the altar of Trump. Any criticism or refusal to cast a vote in his direction was met with derision and the math-challenged claim that a vote for anyone other than Trump meant a vote for Hillary.

Today’s Trumpanzees are no different. Much like the hysterical left that shits its diapers at every single word 45 utters and refuses to acknowledge the positive things he’s done so far or simply misinterprets and outright lies about every act he takes, the Trumpanzee is the creature that creams its diapers at every single assertion the President makes – whether true, partially true, or false – swings its schadenboner around like a drunken frat boy, jumps into defensive mode every time it perceives an attack on its deity, has no concept of policy, and merely supports any and all policies 45 advances, because he happens to be the one who advanced them.

These are the people who have no actual knowledge of events, they have no comprehension of economics, foreign affairs, military affairs, or diplomacy. They toss their allegedly “conservative” values aside and twist like a yogi on meth in their frothing zeal to mold policies they would have never supported before Trump came along into something they can claim is a “victory” or a “conservative” value. They are also the ones who hurl ad hominems at their opponents, who answer every challenge with “Oh, you must be a liberal/Oh, you must have voted for Hillary,” and who accuse their interlocutors of suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, because they had the unmitigated gall to be critical of the President.

Right Wisconsin editor Charlie Sykes recently penned a column in the New York Times, discussing anti-anti-Trumpism. If you don’t want to give the NYT a click, the meat of the piece is here. What is anti-anti-Trumpism? Well, to me, it’s a nicer way of describing the Trumpanzee.

Here is how it works: Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to (1) the biased “fake news” media, (2) over-the-top liberals, (3) hypocrites on the left, (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”

So I figured I’d give you my handy list about how to recognize a Trumpanzee – the frothing, dick-swinging, “WINNING!” lunatics who gleefully promote 45 merely because they “WON!” and despite the fact that the policies they may be promoting are the very antithesis of those they claim to espouse. To do this, I’m going to borrow Jeff Foxworthy’s “You might be a redneck if…” format for some of these, but if you recognize yourself in this list, you might want to engage in some introspection before engaging with others.

1. If your instinctive reaction to any criticism of the President is to hurl the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) accusation, you might be a Trumpanzee.

2. If your loathing of the left and your schadenboner at WINNING overshadow your belief in liberty and limited government, you might be a Trumpanzee.

3. If your first response to a criticism of 45’s policies is to accuse your interlocutor of being a Democrat/Hillary supporter, you might be a Trumpanzee.

4. If you rationalize outrageous conduct and defend policies that clearly fly in the face of the conservative values you purport to uphold…

5. If watching the left’s heads “go splodey” is more important to you than advancing the principles of limited government and liberty…

6. If your reaction to opposition to Trump’s policies is an immediate attack on the person who voices said opposition or even death threats

7. If everything except for Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Conservative Treehouse, Conservative Tribune, Young Cons, *insert any other “conservative” site here* is FAKE NEWS…

…you might be a Trumpanzee.

8. If you accuse the “deep state” of trying to sabotage the President by presenting misinformation, outright lies, or completely inaccurate/uninformed analysis by one of the above sites, you might be a Trumpanzee.

9. If you share positive “news” about the President without checking sources, merely because it strokes your turgid confirmation bias…

10. And if you refuse to read anything that might challenge your perceptions regarding the President, because it happens to be published in the Washington Post/NYT/*insert EEEVIL mainstream media source here*, and swear off any media – conservative, liberal, or otherwise – as soon as they publish anything critical of the President, but will gleefully share memes that don’t actually mean a thing…

…You might be a Trumpanzee.

11. If you cannot defend specific actions by the President, but choose instead to revert to the tried and true “Well, Obama…” or “Hillary would have been worse…” you might be a Trumpanzee.

12. If the liberals hate one of the President’s policies, and you automatically love and ardently defend it, merely because the liberals oppose it, regardless of whether or not it upholds the principles of conservatism, you might be a Trumpanzee.

13. If instead of defending conservative policies, you find yourself only saying things like…

“Trump is doing fine as the political weapon I voted for against the Washington Establishment!”

“While The Republican Congress is playing checkers, Trump is playing Chess!”

“I win!”

“FAKE NEWS!” in response to everything.

“…still infinitely better than Hillary,” in response to everything.

“…you would rather have Hillary…”

“You lost get over it and move on.”

“…your [sic.] bitter and upset that Trump won.”

“You have no clue what the art of the deal is.”

“Your [sic.] cluesless [sic.] how negotiation and leverage works [sic.]”

“Feels good to win. We won, you lost. Now sit down and shut up.”

“I don’t care. I voted for Trump because I didn’t want to lose the Supreme Court for the next 50 years. I didn’t count on him keeping any promises except for the promise to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court which he will follow.”

“Would anyone want Hillary Clinton in office instead? Hillary would have been the death knell for us all.”

“They’re trying a coup! Obama Administration and Obama Loyalists still in the NSA, DNI and FBI didn’t get the memo about the American Tradition of ‘Peaceful Transition of Power.’ They were using their power for political ends, in conjunction with the MSM.”

But he’s draining the swamp!

…you might be a Trumpanzee.

14. If you accuse anyone who disagrees with the President of being a “leftard,” “leftist,” or of hating America, you might be a Trumpanzee.

None of these are plausible reasons to support bad policies, and yet, these turd bombs are what I see the Trumpanzees hurling when they can’t defend the President’s decisions.

And to be sure, there have been some good decisions so far. Gorsuch for the Supreme Court is, in my opinion, fantastic. Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster make up a competent, intelligent, informed national security team. Steven Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury is an informed, engaged, sharp principal. I applaud those appointments.

But I’m not giving him a pass on the “we’ll build a big, beautiful wall and make Mexico pay for it” promise – a wall which he now expects the American taxpayers to fund.

I’m not giving him a pass on the ObamaCare repeal or the reversal on ExIm Bank.

I’m certainly not giving him a pass on appointing Flynn as National Security Advisor and then blaming Obama for giving him a clearance, even though he had been out of government service for more than two years, and done a lot of engagement with the Russians, among others, as a civilian when he accepted the position.

Look, people, there’s not a single President who deserves your blind devotion. Not. A. Single. One. They are human, and they are hardly perfect.

And yet, we see rabid Trumpanzees hysterically attacking anyone who has the temerity to voice a critical opinion of the President – without any knowledge of economics, politics, military doctrine, or understanding of intelligence – just because WE WON, AND YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!

If you find yourself blindly supporting the policies of the President merely because they piss off the left, you are not doing yourself, your country, or your conservative principles any favors. By refusing to acknowledge when one of your own screws up or goes back on a promise, or making excuses for his actions, you’re doing harm. Real harm – both to the conservative movement, and to America. And if you’re defending actions that a year ago you found indefensible due to your conservative principles, you’re doing harm. Real harm.

We should hold all our elected officials accountable to the people, holding their feet to the fire for broken promises or policies that contradict the principles on which they were elected, and that is what should be important, rather than basing our judgments on whether or not the left is unhappy. If you fail to be objective because you’re so busy swinging your dick around about WINNING, you don’t deserve to win.

Allowing the left to dictate right and wrong based on their histrionic screeching is not particularly bright, and it reflects poorly on conservatives writ large.

We have a duty to be objective when it comes to our leaders. We have an obligation to question them when warranted. We have a responsibility to be informed.

I realize it’s a whole lot easier to just pop some popcorn and defend the indefensible just to watch the left’s heads explode. It’s certainly more fun than doing some research and actually admitting that your guy isn’t even close to perfect. I get it. You voted for him. You would feel responsible.

It’s much easier to deflect attention for a President’s failures to his enemies, and it’s certainly a lot more entertaining to simply ridicule the unhinged left than to face possible failures in the people for whom we cast votes.

And it’s certainly much more superficially satisfying to shove your fist down the “enemy’s” throat, while loudly proclaiming your WINNING! while pouring dirt on those who take the time to research and understand the policies involved, because they’re not jubilantly proclaiming the greatness of the leader you worship.

That’s not conservatism. The fact that the Trumpanzees are in the process of transforming conservatism into the turds they eventually fling at their perceived enemies is disturbing.

Cue flood of Trumpanzees engaging in some or all of the above behavior in 3…2…1…

Why are we less important?

I haven’t read the new GOP health care bill that passed a couple of days ago, because I simply haven’t had time. The things I heard about it – from both the right and the left – have not been positive, but given the vast amount of misinformation out there about it from both sides, I’d rather read it for myself before commenting on the legislation. And I will. It just might take a while.

Instead, I’d like to talk about this idea that somehow people like me and my family – and hundreds of thousands of others – should be victimized to ostensibly “help” people for whom programs already exist that ensure they have access to health care.

First, a couple of actual facts.

The “pre-existing condition” hysteria is just that. There are very few Americans who are actually denied insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions. As Avik Roy points out in Forbes, prior to ObamaCare, “Employer-based plans were required to offer coverage to everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. So were Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs like the VA.

And since 90 percent of Americans obtain coverage through one of those means, the number of uninsured due to pre-existing conditions is actually pretty small. How small? Roughly 115,000 small.

As Roy notes, the government after passing ObamaCare created the Pre-Existing Condition Plan designed to help the roughly 10 percent of Americans who ostensibly were denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

PCIP was designed to work from the years 2010 to 2014, as a bridge until Obamacare’s insurance regulations took effect. During those years, Americans could sign up for heavily subsidized coverage under PCIP if they had documented proof that they had been denied coverage by an insurance company and had a pre-existing condition.

At the program’s peak, 114,959 people signed up for its coverage. That’s not even 1 percent of the population.

Now, I do understand this coverage is important for these folks. It sucks that they are either denied coverage or forced to go broke paying for it because of their illness. The PCIP was created to alleviate that problem.

I’m not a fan of entitlements, but if this is the major problem health insurance reform  was trying to fix, why not institutionalize this program as a safety net for less than 1 percent of the population and leave the rest of us alone?

But beyond that, let’s remember that lack of insurance coverage =\= lack of actual health care. The 1986 Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act explicitly forbids hospitals to deny care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay. Beyond emergency treatment, doctors and hospitals are under no legal obligation to provide care to those unable to pay.

Ethical obligation? That’s a different story.

Doctors do take charity cases, and they do treat the indigent pro bono, as well as people who have lost their jobs or have fallen on hard times. They provide payment plans, and do try to work with patients. But medical practices have bills to pay, staff to compensate, equipment and drugs to buy, and malpractice insurance as well as other overhead to pay. At what point does it become untenable for a doctor to provide free services to people who can’t afford it? They certainly can’t do so if they leave their practice!

Pharmaceutical companies also offer relief to patients who are unable to pay for their medication.

So, what I’m saying is, there are programs available to help those who need it. Will they cover everyone fully? Probably not. Will they save every single person who is in dire need of care? Probably not. No matter how many fixes you provide, some will always fall through the cracks.

And I feel for these patients. I really do.

But the overhaul of the entire health care system that screws over millions of Americans, forcing them out of policies with which they were satisfied and which they could afford, and obligating them to pay thousands of dollars more for coverage, in favor of a relatively small number of patients?

That’s not justice.

What makes these patients more important than you or me?

My monthly insurance premiums more than doubled partly because ObamaCare forced a one-size-fits-all coverage requirement on all insurance companies and partly because Rob’s insurance coverage, for which he was paying out of pocket, consequently doubled, forcing us to put him on my government policy.

Why is my family’s financial health less important than providing pregnancy coverage for a 70-year-old man?

Two years ago, I had an underwater house I couldn’t sell, tenants whose rent didn’t even cover my mortgage payments, and who ultimately first stole my house, and then trashed it, causing tens of thousands of dollars in damages. We were living paycheck to paycheck, despite both of us working. Mortgage payments combined with our rent ate up 80 percent of my paycheck. And yet, I was taking home only a little more than 50 percent of my pay – in part because my insurance rates went up significantly.

Why is my ability to provide for my family, to make a payment for my old, 2003 Jeep, and to buy groceries less important than providing contraception coverage for someone who claims they can’t afford a box of condoms at their pharmacy?

Why is forcing those who choose to pay their physicians directly, instead of using health insurance, or those who choose to risk it without a policy, to spend their money on purchasing health insurance, preferable to allowing them that choice? Why are those who choose not to purchase insurance less important than those who demand the latter pay for their policies?

Why are doctors less important than other members of society? Why are they reviled as rich fat cats for demanding fair pay for their skills, their knowledge, their years of hard work and study, their sleepless nights, and ultimately for providing services very few in this society are capable of providing? Are they not entitled to fair compensation? Are they so unimportant that they shouldn’t be allowed to set a value for their labor, while unskilled fry cooks demand a $15/hour minimum wage for theirs?

Why is a small percentage of the population, whose inability to pay for needed medical care can be mitigated by already existing public and private programs, more important than the people who are going broke paying obscene premiums, who lost their doctors, or who opted to be penalized at tax time, rather than pay thousands in premium increases?

Why are people who got health insurance through ObamaCare more important than those who lost it, or lost access to their doctor because of it?

Why is the federal government deciding whose “need” is greater?

Why is my need to feed my family, to pay my bills, or to help my kids with school bills less important than someone else’s need to be covered just in case they can’t afford a doctor’s visit or a box of condoms, especially given the fact that programs do exist to help those truly in need of life-saving care and can be institutionalized so they can continue helping this small percentage of patients?

Why are people who are able to provide for their families less important than those who can’t? And they’re SO MUCH less important, that their loss, their hard work, their pain, their efforts to eke out a living and provide for their families are denigrated as “the rich trying to hoard wealth.”

Why is the appearance of doing something to help the poor more important than actually helping them, and definitely more important than protecting people like me, like Rob, and like millions of people who don’t qualify as “needy” in the government’s eyes?

Why are we less important?

Shrinking the Federal Bureaucracy

You all know I’ve been super critical of the President on a number of foreign policy and national security issues, including those he chose for his national security team, but I like to think I’m fair, and aside from the thankfully defunct Michael Flynn and the unfortunately current Darth Badhair McHobo and MiniMogul, his national security team is actually shaping up pretty well. Jim Mattis and John Kelly are perfect Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security respectively. I’ve heard nothing but good things about H.R. McMaster, and I literally did a happy dance at the selection of Fiona Hill as White House senior director for Europe and Russia. I’ve referenced her articles on Putin before. She’s an expert and a realist. What’s not to like?

I also like to think I’m fair on domestic policy issues. So, yes, TrumpCare, or whatever we’re calling it this week, is a dumpster fire and the constant Twitter seizures and unsubstantiated claims of wiretapping and unemployment data manipulation by 44 are getting old.

That said… the left’s apoplectic paroxysms of outrage about proposed Trump budget cuts are giving me giggle fits. Fiscal responsibility involves sometimes tough choices, and I think we finally have a President who is willing to make them, who is willing to look at all the multiplicative, wasteful, and downright unconstitutional programs the federal government is funding and say, “Enough!”

Let’s remember that the vast majority of the federal budget is non-discretionary, which means it’s mandatory spending. We have to pay certain bills, and we don’t have a choice about it.  Among them is entitlement spending, such as Social Security. It is spent based on existing laws rather than the budgeting process, and without actual entitlement reform, we must pay it. Discretionary spending constitutes a pretty small portion of the federal budget, which means we need to be judicious about how we spend that money, which includes funding for our military, education, international affairs, environment, etc.

Discretionary Spending is the portion of the budget that the president requests and Congress appropriates every year. It represents less than one-third of the total federal budget, while mandatory spending accounts for around two-thirds.

Trump’s budget proposal does exactly this, but the left is, of course, hyperventilating about it, because they’re all about MOAR SPENDING! The Washington Post this morning helpfully shows what program cuts will help fund $54 billion in proposed defense spending increases. I’m good with this, quite frankly, because national defense is one of the very few constitutional functions of our government. And guess what’s not on that list!

Agency/Program What it does
21st Century Community Learning Centers Provides funding for after-school programs for students in high-poverty areas
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program Provides loans to automotive manufacturers developing fuel-efficient technologies
African Development Foundation Invests in African businesses
Appalachian Regional Commission Invests in projects for economic growth in the Appalachian region
ARPA-E Funds research into new energy technologies
Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Provides housing assistance to low-income families
Chemical Safety Board Investigates industrial chemical accidents
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Provides funding for cleanup and protection of the Chesapeake Bay watershed
Community Development Block Grant Provides housing assistance to low-income families
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund grants Provides support to financial services in underserved communities
Community Services Block Grant Provides funding for projects that alleviate poverty
Corporation for National & Community Service Runs AmeriCorps, City Year and other public service programs
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Provides federal funding to local radio and television stations across the U.S.
Delta Regional Authority Funds infrastructure and economic programs in the Mississippi River delta region
Denali Commission Provides economic assistance in Alaska
Economic Development Administration Provides funding for economic development projects across the U.S.
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Account Provides emergency funding for humanitarian crises around the world
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Tests pesticides and other chemicals for adverse effects on humans and animals
Energy Star Provides assistance for energy efficiency programs
Essential Air Service program Provides funding for air transportation to rural communities
Global Climate Change Initiative Provides financial assistance for climate change initiatives in developing countries
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Provides funding for cleanup and protection of Great Lakes watersheds
Institute of Museum and Library Services Provides grants and research for libraries, museums, zoos and similar institutions.
Inter-American Foundation Provides development assistance to Latin American countries
Legal Services Corporation Provides legal aid to low-income Americans
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Assists low-income families with heating and cooling costs
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program Provides school meals and nutrition programs in poor countries
Minority Business Development Agency Provides technical assistance to minority-owned businesses
NASA Office of Education Supports STEM education initiatives
National Endowment for the Arts Provides funding for arts projects
National Endowment for the Humanities Provides funding for cultural institutions like universities and museums, as well as projects by individual scholars
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Provides housing assistance to low-income Americans
Northern Border Regional Commission Economic development in northern New England
Overseas Private Investment Corporation Helps U.S. businesses invest overseas
Senior Community Service Employment Program Funds job training for low-income, unemployed seniors
State Energy Program Provides funding and technical assistance for energy efficiency and clean energy
Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants program Provides grants to improve education quality
Targeted Air Shed Grants Provides grants for air pollution control
TIGER Discretionary Grant program Provides funding for transportation projects across the U.S.
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program Provides loan guarantees for new energy products
United States Institute of Peace Works on international conflict mitigation
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness Coordinates federal response to homelessness
US Trade and Development agency Promotes U.S. exports in developing countries.
Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program Provides funding for water infrastructure in rural areas
Weatherization Assistance Program Provides grants for weatherizing low-income homes
Woodrow Wilson International Center Foreign policy think tank

The Post reports that a number of these federal programs have failed to show efficacy and that the private sector can perform these functions better.

Why the hell are we funding a foreign policy think tank? So it can produce written opinions on policy that, because they’re funded by the government, will invariably become a mouthpiece of said government.

Why are the feds giving money to businesses that want to invest overseas? Let these businesses assume their own risk and invest how they see fit, instead of the taxpayers funding businesses who will inevitably assume more risk, because it’s not their money to play with!

Why are U.S. taxpayers giving money to USAID through the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program to subsidize school lunches to foreign students? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that it’s the function of the government to give school lunches to our own kids, let alone to ones in other countries! I get that we want to appear to be generous and bighearted, but as a wise man once said, voting for the government to give poor people money is not compassion.

Neither is forcing the U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for investments in African businesses. If someone wants to plop down their hard-earned dollars to invest in an African enterprise, great! Good for them! But to arbitrarily take money away from Americans and send them overseas tells us that bureaucrats know better how to spend our money and where to invest it (in businesses that likely prop up the political agenda, or in which the bureaucrats and politicians have interests). I’ll remind you how Solyndra worked out.

And don’t even get me started on government funding for the arts!

So yes, we need to be judicious with our spending. We need to focus on programs that are effective, efficient, and constitutional, and all this crap above ain’t it.

About That Travel Ban

No, not that one.

This one. The one you probably have never heard of because it involves Andrew Cuomo’s (D-ipshit, NY) ban on state-sponsored travel to North Carolina because that state passed a law last year requiring transgender people to use the bathroom of the gender with which they were born.

A University at Buffalo pharmacy student is appealing the governor’s travel ban to North Carolina because she says it affects her ability to do rotations there.
This student hasn’t gotten any response from the governor’s office despite three months of calls, letters, and faxes to appeal her case, so Christine Piccione finally reached out 2 On Your Side as a plea for help.
Piccione is a third year pharmacy student at UB, and one of the final things these students need to do are rotations for hands-on practice.

So, this virtue signaling retard has joined celebutards and other assorted, frothing trash by trying to punish North Carolina for a bathroom law (that I have always disagreed with due to government overreach issues) he felt was discriminatory against transgender people.

Did he ban official government travel to Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by law? No. How about Iran? Can New Yorkers still travel there? Yes.

You mean, he only banned travel to a single state in the union – a state that saw it fit to dictate who uses what bathroom in a public building?

Hypocrite.

All that said, who really loses in this scenario?

Piccione was funding her trip herself – with her own money. She has been prevented by the state from studying where she believed was best for her own education, since UNC Chapel Hill is widely regarded as having one of the best – of not the best – pharmacy program in country, and certain laws in NC would allow her to do more than here in New York, according to the report.

“I definitely think it does put me at a disadvantage. I’m going to be competing against the top students in the country for jobs, and I just don’t think it’s fair that I don’t get that opportunity when we can travel anywhere else in the country, anywhere else in the world even, and I can’t travel to one state in my own country,” said Piccione.

And yes, this travel ban infringes on this student’s rights. It inserts government into her personal education decisions. It puts an unnecessary hardship on her, forcing her to waste time and resources trying to resolve the issue, which really just comes down to wanting to study her chosen profession in what is ostensibly the best pharmacy program in the country.

And the state – the ever mighty, overreaching state – has decided in all its wisdom that Piccione cannot spend her own money to study in North Carolina, because Cuomo disagrees with a law there. A student is prevented from studying at the university of her choice, because Cuomo doesn’t like that state’s law.

And let’s be clear – right now that’s all it is: Cuomo’s opinion.

The trial over this law has been postponed until the Supreme Court decides whether the Obama administration’s interpretation of federal civil rights law, that transgender students are protected under Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs, is correct. That case will be heard next month, according to press. So until that issue is decided in the nation’s courts, Cuomo is preventing a student from traveling to North Carolina to study at a highly regarded educational program, because Cuomo has an opinion.

christine-piccioneWhy is no one protesting that a U.S. citizen’s right to fund her own education and travel where she sees appropriate for her career choice has been violated?

I mean, we’re seeing snortastically ignorant nationwide boycotts in support of people who violated the law by coming here illegally – or staying here illegally. But no one is protesting the ever-intrusive state preventing a student from traveling within her own country – on her own dime. Why is that?

I guess a “privileged” blonde, white girl doesn’t elicit the same kind of sanctimonious outrage as oppressed “people of color.”

And by the way – I remember a place where you had to have government permission to travel for work or study. It was called the USSR.

%d bloggers like this: