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.
