Nepotism

1. U.S. Code › Title 5 › Part III › Subpart B › Chapter 31 › Subchapter I › § 3110

(a)For the purpose of this section—

(1)“agency” means—

(A)

an Executive agency;

(2)

“public official” means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress)

(3)

“relative” means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.

(b)

A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.

You know......I really do not need to write another word here, but I will anyway.  AGAIN, trump believes he can flaunt the law.  ivanca trump and her husband, jared kushner, cannot work in the White House, period. It is specifically prohibited by the above referenced federal statute.  Per this statute, trump cannot hire them in any official capacity, by any means.  In other words, he cannot even nominate them to a position and then have them approved by Congress.  I can read, you can read, the members of Congress can read, trump.......not so sure.  I do not need to give reasons why I find the idea of these two people, daughter and son-in-law, serving in the White House for the head admin a repulsive idea.  The only ground that I need to stand on is the law.

We, the people must be proactive.  We must write to our representatives in Congress and the Justice Department.  These two people working in the White House is flat out illegal.

As was pointed out in an Op-Ed in the New York Times this morning (a happy coincidence because I started this posting last night) written by Norman Eisen and Richard W. Painter, If trump chose to disregard the law and 'employ' these two people as advisers in an unofficial way, a whole different set of issues would arise.  If trump does not officially appoint these two to official positions, but gives them free access to the the West Wing of the White House, they would have the ability to instruct administration staff, while not having been approved by our representatives.  They would skirt the legal necessity to have to disclose taxes and business dealings so that conflicts of interest could be identified and removed.  They would use an 'end run' to avoid recusing themselves from   issues that involve their business holdings with conflicts of interest.  They would be privy to info that would be "dangerously close to liability for insider trading". As far as I'm concerned, Eisen and Painter are hedging their bet as lawyers often do. If ivanca trump and kushner have access to the highest levels of secured information that they will gain as uncontrolled opperatives in the White House, they will in fact be in violation of inside trading laws, currently on the books. They won't be dangerously close, all three of these people will be squarely over the legal line; trump, his daughter and her husband.

In order to demonstrate the legitimacy of the authors of the referenced Op-Ed, please see their credentials, below and note that Eisen worked for The Obama White House and Painter worked for the G.W. Bush White House:

Norman Eisen, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2009 to 2011. Richard W. Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007. 

The last point that I will put forward is that without official positions, i. trump and j. kushner have no legal standing to be given the highest level of security clearance, as trump has requested for them.  In fact they have no right to any level of security clearance.  Without security clearance, all three would be squarely breaking the law by discussing sensitive security issues.  This would be especially true for kushner, who trump wants in the West Wing of the White House to advise trump on foreign policy issues. 

Grey Scale

12/28 -

Last night was my last night at my brothers house in the D.C. metro area.  We had friends over and a nice family and friends dinner for thirteen.  After dinner we settled into a conversation, around the dining room table, about what we all thought the upcoming government was going to end up looking like.  As many Americans do, there were many of us around the table that saw the next administration in black or white terms, along with the Republican Congress.  I was one of those voices, although not the Congress as much as the future administration.  I still do not see the trump administration in any other way, other than the extremes of black or white.

My sister in-law is, I have found over the past thirty years, a very astute political observer and much of what she has foreseen as the future of our country's political structure has come to pass.  For instance, in the 1980's, she told me that what we now refer to as the 'Christian right' was going to grow to be a political power that needed to be paid attention to.  At the time I 'boo hooed' her and believed she was silly.  Well we all know how that has played out.  Last night she rightfully pointed out that nothing is black or white (or at least very little).  And I immediately recognized, within myself, that this was a basic tenet that I live by.  I often tell people that say words like 'never' or 'always' that superlatives are rarely true.  So, given my own core beliefs, my sister in-law's history with understanding Washington, D.C. and her admonition that rarely are things either black or white, I stepped back.

I still believe that trump and steve bannon, as well as a few other's that will be appointed to cabinet positions are characters that can be seen in stark black and white terms, with relation to their opinions on critical issues.  Characters, I believe, is an apt description for these people.  Certainly trump and bannon lack any complexity as human beings, as far as I'm concerned.  If they have well rounded and developed adult personalities, I see no evidence of it.  The others that I referred to, I really do not know enough about them to make that sort of decision.

I also feel that the women and men that comprise the Senate are reasonable people.  Even Mitch McConnell, who I do not hold much respect for, has shown himself to not be a rubber stamp for trump (at least on some issues), but time will tell.  The Senate may very well be a very strong ally in the fight to hold trump and bannon in check.  I am not forgetting about pence, who will preside over the Senate, but whose only true powers will be to be a tie breaking vote and of course to attempt to keep Republicans in line on any given vote.  pence is a person I believe to be a great threat to individual liberty, especially women's liberties.

The House of Representatives as a whole, again, has decent men and women.  There are smaller groups that will attempt to wreak havoc and therefore the House is a less dependable body.  So, the Senate will need to be a check on both the admin and the House.

We, Americans of decent moral values, whether Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, rich or poor need to be pragmatic.  We need to find common ground and stand on that turf to block bannon and trump when they attempt to act in immoral ways.  That pragmatism depends on not seeing each other with rigid labels, but recognizing each other as allies against immorality.  Not seeing each other as black or white characters.  Recognize the 'grey scale', find the common ground, use it to keep our country safe and to remain the United States  of America.

Opulence

12/27 -

I live in Pennsylvania, but am down in the D.C. metro area with my brother, his wife and family for Christmas.  It is truly joyful to be here, especially their granddaughters who are eight and three.  They are unbelievably well behaved girls.  Not the stereotypical loud and crazy kids running around.  They are able to occupy themselves for hours at a time with thoughtful activities.

In the powder room, there is a basket of magazines, a fairly typical feature in many homes.  When looking through these publications while visiting the 'facility', I came across the 'Luxury Issue' of The Washington Post Magazine.  Please excuse me for being indelicate, but it was a good thing I was in the bathroom, because I wanted to puke.  The level of opulence, sheer material wealth, and apparent pride in these trappings was, to me, foul and disgusting.  Photos of women in clothing that is obviously extremely costly and bedecked with the latest jewelry.  At least fifty percent of the magazines pages are ads for 'everything' from "the perfect wedding" to "The Center for Cosmetic Surgery" to cognac, jewelry, clothes, minks, Rolls Royces, McLarens, Lamborghinis and so on.  The photos are of people that are obviously privileged beyond what the vast majority of people on this planet will ever even catch a whiff of.

Although everything about this 'Luxury Issue' nauseated me, I came to understand that it was what this issue represents that offended me, not individuals with vast sums of money.  For the most part, I do not begrudge those that are wealthy, their wealth. For the most part.  What sticks in my 'crawl' is the apparent lack of compassion that I see represented and reflected.  People at grand events, where hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent to stage the event, and outside of the the venue hundreds, maybe even thousands of people homeless on the streets, struggling to survive day to day.  I've no doubt that the individuals that I see pictured donate large sums of money to individual charities, and I am thankful.

What I am writing about is on a much larger scale than wealthy people contributing to charitable organizations.  I'm speaking to our society, where homeless people do not have a decent place to live.  I'm speaking to millions that cannot afford health care.  especially the health insurance issue.  What do health insurance companies mean when they say they are loosing money by being required to insure those that cannot afford to be insured?  These companies are still collecting money from these very same people through the 'market places' that have been set up by The Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA), just not what they charge those that can afford to pay the 'normal' fee.  Are these companies still not showing a profit?  Of course they are.  Are they not meeting the profit projections they want to put in their ledgers?  Maybe not.  'Tough shit'.

While working on this post, I was sitting at the dining room table with my niece, who was, as chance would have it, applying for health insurance through the 'market place'.  Last year she paid $150 per month, now she will need to pay $300 per month.  Is this a failing of the AHCA?  If so, it is only because in order to get uninsured people insured, to get any kind of legislation passed, the insurance industry lobbied their way into maintaining control over the system.  It is not the "government" that raised the monthly fee for those least able to pay, it is the insurance industry.

In an earlier posting titled Health Care in the U.S. and the 'S' word on 11/22, I addressed the health care issue and a possible alternative solution.  I urge all of you to read this post, even if you have already read it.  I believe the case made in the earlier post will make more sense in light of what is written above.

















  

A World for all People

Dear Readers,

Please forgive me for not posting with the consistency that you are used to.  I am on vacation and have been doing holiday 'things' with my family.  I will be posting every day, but it may be late or first thing the next morning (like the post below).   Please know that the regularity will return after the first of the year.

With Thanks for your understanding,

Bill



Post for 12/26 -

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to everyone.  What an amazing country we live in, where we have the freedom to practice any religion we please, or not practice a religion at all for that matter, without repercussions from a governing body.  In many countries around the world, this is simply not possible.  In those countries people are coerced into religious compliance for fear of unwanted and unpleasant consequences from governments.  Morality can not be legislated, but it certainly helps to hold basic human nature in check.

Humans, the world over, have an innate drive to have prejudices against other humans that do not think as they do.  Jews don't trust Muslims.   Christians don't like Jews and don't trust Muslims.  Muslims don't like or trust  Jews and Christians.  In our politically correct world, these are statements that we find repugnant and use a  broad brush to paint the picture.  Although I know that no group is monolithic and no individual can be judged due to the 'group' they 'belong' to,   I believe these statements basically hold true.  It is the human condition.  Don't ask me why, I don't know.  But.......looking at history, it seems undeniable.

We are certainly not immune in our country, but we have a circuit breaker, a firewall.  It does not block the issue in the all of the private sector, but it does prevent the issue from occurring in government and to some extent in the private sector.  For instance, it is illegal to use discrimination in any way, including religion, to discriminate in hiring practices.  In other countries this would not be an issue for an employer.

I believe we have entered into another era of 'Crusades'.  I believe that historians, from the longer view, will see behavior in many areas around the world in the same way that we now view the Crusades of the dark and middle ages.  Both Christians and Muslims have a greater capability to prosecute such a conflict, to do so with greater ferocity and to conduct such a war on a world wide basis.  Jews are not above such a conflict and have most likely been integral in setting up these 'bad' feelings. All parties feel as though they are the offended group and feel fully justified in what amounts to hate.  Go ask many Jews how they feel about Muslims and the answer will be one of distrust and hate.  Ask Many Muslims how the feel about Jews....... distrust and hate.  Members of both groups will give you logical and salient reasons.  Now that a very small group of terrorists (relative to the religious group that they claim to represent) has committed acts of terrorism in both the U.S. and in Europe, just ask many 'Christians' in the U.S. how they feel about Muslims.  You guessed it, distrust and hate.  They may not even try to mask the hatred with cloaked language.

So......what to do?  I do not claim to have the answer.  If anyone had the answer the world would be a better, less violent place now.  I believe our job, in this country and across the world is to start to define that path for our children and future generations.  The U.S. Constitution started us down that road, but we have stalled and even taken a few steps backwards.  What we need, to move forward again, are leaders in our country and around our globe to espouse peace, tolerance and a place for all people on our planet.  The fact that this is an idealistic view is not lost on me.  Our current reality is evident and unfortunately, I do not see anyone in current leadership positions that have an interest in supporting this message.  Our job is to place pressure on our leaders, with all the peaceful means we can think of, to be more idealistic and make that the new reality.

BOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

BOOOOOOOM!

12/22/16 :

vlad putim - "Moscow needs to “strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, [developing arms that can avoid missile defense systems].

Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump

The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes (author's note, good leadership (not), trump needs to come to his senses)

11:50 AM - 22 Dec 2016

12/23/16:

Morning Joe 

✔@Morning_Joe

BREAKING: Trump to #morningjoe on the nukes tweet: 'Let it be an arms race'

7:04 AM - 23 Dec 2016

“We will outmatch them at every pass,”  per MSNB

'Trump meant that he won’t allow other countries to expand their nuclear capabilities.', per sean spicer, future White House press secretary, in a television interview, per a Washington Post article on the afternoon of 12/23.

What the hell is going on?  A nuclear arms race?!?  Are these two guys idiots? I am not any kind of expert on nuclear arms or on military strategy. And you know what, I don't need to be.  Here's some simple numbers.  The U.S. currently has 2,150 operational and deployed nuclear weapons.  There are another 2,500 in 'reserve storage' and 3,000 set to be disarmed.  But lets just talk about the 2,150 that are operational and deployed.  Our country has various classes of 'nukes' with varying strengths; 100 kilotons, 150 kilotons, 340 kilotons, 450 kilotons and 1.2 megatons.  The nuclear bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima had a strength of  approximately 15 kilotons and the weapon dropped on Nagasaki was between 18 and 23 kilotons.  You do the math.  How much destructive power do we need?  

trump tweeted that he wants to "strengthen and expand our nuclear capability".  I'll repeat the two key words, "strengthen and expand".  I'm at a loss for words.  

 trump tweets and then his his 'team' scrambles to soften his words.  Even if this is an intended strategy to keep other nations off balance (which I do not believe is the case), it is a dangerous and adolescent game.  What I do believe we have here is a reactionary ass that can't keep his 'mouth' shut.  Twitter is no way to conduct foreign policy, or domestic policy for that matter.  putin, for his part, is proving that he understands trump; he can and will manipulate trump.  

Hopefully, trump's nominee to oversee the Pentagon, Retired Marine General james mattis, will be able to assert his views, which he revealed in testimony last year in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  mattis noted that  it was time to ask whether it was “time to reduce the triad to a dyad,” suggesting that it may be time to abandon America's ICBMs (inter continental ballistic missiles). he further pointed out that to do so could reduce the "false alarm danger" (setting off a nuclear war by accident).  

Just remember, trump ....."know[s] more.......than the generals do, believe [him]”.  He was talking about ISIS when he made this statement, but it sure sounds like he thinks the same way with reference to nuclear arms.

No Bueno!

he 

At the Car Wash

The first thing I want to note is, I'm sorry for being so late with today's post.  It is 9:35 pm as I sit down to write today.  This is not the norm, but I had family obligations I needed to take care of today, i.e. getting ready for Christmas.

A second piece of house keeping, there will be no post on Sunday, Christmas day.

Today, while driving north on PA route 309, into Quakertown, PA, I was stopped in a line of traffic right next to a car wash.  It was busy, what with it being a nice day and people wanting to get their cars spruced up for Christmas day.  There were all sorts of nice looking vehicles, all shined up, with chrome wheels.  All where expensive cars & pick up trucks.  You know, $35,000 being the least expensive.  The pick up trucks were obviously not really working trucks, they were too pretty.  I bet you know what I'm leading up to, don't ya.  All of the employees were Hispanic.  I'm not profiling, It was clearly the case.  Now don't worry, I'm not going nazi on you.  In an earlier post I noted that many immigrants take on jobs that that we want done, but we Americans are simply not going to do them.  Oh, I guess it's OK to have Hispanics in our country at that moment, when 'you' want your car washed, or when you want your lawn mowed, or when you want your garden tended, or when you want your crops picked, or when you the restaurant owner needs a dishwasher, or when you need your house cleaned, or when you the hotel owner needs maids to clean the rooms.  Sorry, just a little morality rant.

I work as a help desk technician to help customers resolve issues with their computers used for sales in fast food restaurants.  A large portion of the customers that I help are Spanish speakers,  all around the country.  It seems to me, though, that the highest concentration is in the southern states of our country.  Funny, these are the states where people opposed to immigration are the loudest about the subject.  So, why do you think I don't hear more white American voices, huh?  That's not to say that I don't hear some, but the majority of the voices that I hear are not white Americans. They are Hispanic voices, Indian (from the country of India) voices, Middle Eastern voices, Black American voices.  Gettin' the picture.  Marginalized voices.

So, what's all this manure about we don't want immigrants in our country.  We all want clean cars, but many of us are too damn lazy to wash them ourselves, and we sure as hell aren't workin' at the car wash unless the owner is willing to pay us a hell of a lot more than what he or she pays the current employees, and 'we' sure as hell aren't going to pay what would be necessary for the owner to make even a small profit if she or he had to pay white Americans to do the job.  Sure we want immigrants in our country.  We want them to do the jobs that we're simply not going to do, but that we want done.

A friend of mine read me a passage from a book that she is reading, written by  a woman who intentionally worked in a fast food restaurant (as an employee, not a manager).  Of course she could not make a living wage.  She noted that those that work these kinds of jobs are the true "philanthropists".  They give up so much, so that those that frequent the restaurant can have more money to spoil their children and to have nice pretty houses.  The author's point may be somewhat overblown, but for the most point, she is right on the  (shall I say it.......sure, go ahead Bill) "money".

Feliz Navidad y'all!

Who Loans Money to trump?

In a continuing effort to understand what appears to be an overly "chummy" relationship with Russia I'm attempting to "follow the money".  I do not have the financial or time resources to conduct this kind of investigation on my own, so I need to rely on what I believe to be credible news sources to supply me with the information.  For the most part, I am quickly hitting dead ends, but I am able to piece together a little bit of a credible trail.

In a Washington Post article by Phillip Blump, dated July 27, 2016, I found the following trump tweet:

Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump

For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia.

6:50 PM - 26 Jul 2016

Reading this tweet easily made me think that he his clumsily trying to perform a "watch this hand" magic trick.  OK, so he doesn't have any "investments" in Russia.  My question is, does Russia have "investments" in trump?

I found an Op-Ed from the Los Angeles Times, By Max Boot dated July 25, 2016. Boot is an author, consultant, editorialist, lecturer, military historian, and a republican. He is also the Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He wrote the following:
“The Trump-Russia links beneath the surface are even more extensive ...... [t]rump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies.”
Still, I wasn't even close to believing that I had found, at least, a smoking gun.  This was an Op-Ed article and offered me no clear, solid proof that Russian companies, individuals, banks had lent money to or invested in trump.  I kept looking.  I found a Time magazine article dated August 2, 2016 by Jeff Nesbit.  In this article Nesbit reported:

".....[the] Washington Post reported [in an article by Tom Hamburger et.al. on June 17, 2016]: “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,” [t]rump’s son, [d]onald Jr., said at a real estate conference in 2008, according to a trade publication, eTurboNews."

This was as close as I was going to get to a smoking gun.  It went off eight years ago, but there's still enough smoke for me, trump jr. saying that "money [was] pouring in[to trump's companies] from Russia"  This indicates to me that trump and his companies have a tremendous obligation to Russians, in some form. 

To date, trump has still not revealed, released his tax returns for review by the American people.  There is no law that he must do so, but going forward it needs to become law that any individual running for President must release his tax returns for public scrutiny.  By not releasing his returns, trump is bucking a long standing precedent and tradition.  The election is over.  trump does not need to worry, he will become the next head administrator of the the administrative branch of the U.S. government (I will no longer refer to trump as President, he is simply an 'admin')

If trump continues with the reasoning that he will not release his tax returns because he is still under audit from the IRS, then the IRS needs to focus resources on trump's taxes and finish the audit.  All reasons for trump not releasing his tax returns must be stripped, so that when he refuses, he is seen in a clear light by all Americans.