opposition and corruption

Since President Trump has been elected, the Dimms have utilized every conceivable means to interfere with a smoothly functioning government. While it is understandable that there will always be an opposition party, and that there must be an opportunity for the expression of that opposition, it is imperative that the majority party have the ability to govern. The inability of the majority party to implement legislation when it has the majority in both houses of congress leads to an ineffective government, and this is dangerous in our modern world. There are a number of problems in how our current government functions which really need to be addressed.

First of all, an incoming administration needs to have the power to set up their administrative officers efficiently. There are hundreds of positions to be appointed, and these appointments need to occur expediently. There is absolutely no reason that congress should have any involvement in the process of presidential appointments. The current process of congressional confirmation of presidential appointments should be discontinued as it is dysfunctional and specifically intended to be a means of hindering the implementation of an incoming presidential administration. Since the recension of the confirmation process would have to be passed by congress, there is almost zero chance that this change will ever be made, but it really does need to be done.

Secondly, the basic rule of a democratically based government is that the majority rules. Simply stated, if the majority of both houses of congress vote for a law, and the president signs it, then the measure should become law. That is not the way the process currently works. In the senate, new legislation must receive 60 votes (out of 100) to pass. This is just plain wrong. It is a rule that the senate has in place simply to obstruct the passing of a law. It specifically grants 41 senators control of the senate. If there are 41 senators who will oppose new legislation, then it cannot be passed, so instead of the senate being controlled by a majority (51 senators), the minority rules. This needs to be eliminated and never resurrected again. It guarantees that the senate will be totally ineffective. Since this is simply a senate rule, it can be changed easily by a majority vote in the senate.

The next area of concern is in regards to misuse of government power, specifically in the FBI. Stated in a nutshell, the Obama administration used documents created and paid for by the democrats as the basis for a corrupt group of rogue FBI agents to unlawfully initiate spying and unwarranted investigations into republicans during a presidential campaign. These FBI activities were specifically aimed at hindering or destroying the republican candidate. This is the kind of misuse of government power typically employed by dictators to destroy their political opposition, and must be stopped in America. Related to this problem is the stonewalling of congressional requests for information from the FBI. Congress has constitutional oversight authority of the FBI, and non-compliance by the FBI is akin to the actions of a police state. To address this area of concern, I think that we need to set up an internal affairs unit within the FBI. It would first of all be the enforcer that would guarantee that information requests from congress would be quickly accommodated. It should maintain duplicate records of FBI documents which should inaccessible by regular FBI agents so as to ensure that corrupt FBI persons could not hide documents. It also should have the power to review all FBI investigations to look for material deviations from standard FBI procedures looking for evidence of corruption. Last of all, it should have full prosecution powers so that it could properly handle any FBI corruption found.

Also, the Dimms have enhanced the art of “judge shopping” to a high level in their efforts to hinder President Trump’s administration. Simply stated, the Dimms know which judges are “liberal” oriented and willing to hand out rulings which have no basis in written law. Every time President Trump issues an executive order, the Dimms file a lawsuit in a liberal-biased court to prevent the implementation of the order. The biased judge then issues a decision which impedes the executive order temporarily. Some of these decisions have been so flighty that it is hard to believe that a federal judge would sully his reputation by issuing such a decision. In the constitution, there is a reference to the concept of terminating a judge’s tenure if he does not exhibit “good” behavior. In my opinion, “bad” behavior could be defined as issuing capricious decisions based on nothing more than political motives with no written law that supports the decision. Since congress is the agent that writes our laws and should know the intent and/or purpose of the law, it seems logical that repeated judicial decisions by a specific judge should be reviewable by a congressional committee on request to determine if the judge is exhibiting “bad” behavior. If the committee finds evidence of “bad” behavior, then there should be an “impeachment” process available to terminate the judge’s tenure. I think that there must be a process defined to permit an initiation of an investigation with a further “impeachment” process defined to reign in this judicial overreach by biased judges.

Last of all, as was clearly demonstrated by the contempt of congress by Eric Holder and Lois Lerner during the Obama administration, the penalties for contempt of congress are totally inadequate. Both Eric Holder and Lois Lerner effectively gave congress zero respect or cooperation, and there was zero consequences for their contempt of congress. The penalties should be increased, and the enforcement should be handled directly by congress without the involvement of the DOJ.