Rules of Engagement for Politics

Suppose an alien from Mars landed and asked you to describe the rules in our presidential American election process. What would you tell him/her/it? How could you explain it?

First, there is the constitutional process. There are a bunch of regulations and election laws. There are regulations regarding the basic process of “running for president.”

Then there are the default rules of the road, which can change. The latest iteration contains the double standard rules, like ‘what applies to thee does not apply to me’ and so on.

Those rules are distinguished by who you are and what Party you are in. Not everyone lives under the same rules. Some people can ignore the rules while others are harassed by every rule, even as they are made up to suite present circumstances.

A republican candidate or successful president has the strictest rules. You cannot look into an opponent’s record or past experience in government. That is a no-no. Candidates cannot call for investigating an opponent, ex-opponent, or the person who held the job before. Even if there is the off chance a person may be running against you, it is forbidden.

Democrats have a saying: “in this country, we do not investigate our political opponents.” Actually, the accurate translation is we don’t investigate Democrat opponents.

The Democrat candidates are exempt from being scrutinized for their past experiences or record in office. Democrats shall not be investigated. They are exempt from accountability, particularly for their time in office. The past is considered irrelevant to a present race.

Democrats time in office is public service and Republicans’ time is mobster activity.

However, any Democrats running can demand the investigations of Republicans. But it is frowned on to call for investigating other Democrats. In fact, it is taboo for a Democrat to criticize fellow Democrats. But inter-party criticism is encouraged for Republicans.

Republicans shall have no privileges of any kind. But Democrats shall enjoy limitless special privileges Those will be made up as fast as needed. Republicans must adhere to very strict guidelines on everything, including what you can say. If you are a Democrat, you can say or do almost anything and not be held accountable. If you are a Republican you must be held accountable for every possible thing, even for what someone else did.

If you are a Democrat, you are accountable for nothing, zero, But you can claim to be accountable and responsible for everything — if you choose. It really means nothing.

Now along with these rules and particulars, there is a reality of precedent to consider. A Republican is always under the burden of inquisition, for anything at any time. For instance what you did in high school and, for that matter, anything you or your family ever did. (remember those arguments, family disputes or sealed court papers…) Another rule is all records are relevant for Republicans, records can be expunged or sealed for Democrats.

So in real practice, Democrats can open an investigation on a Republican candidate before primaries and keep it going through his term in office. It is called an “insurance policy.” That investigation can use the entire apparatus of federal government and intelligence agencies. It can enlist help from foreign governments, agents of foreign governments, be run through the DNC and coordinate with the Democrat’s campaign. It can use the Department of Justice to conceal and orchestrate the entire inquisition. Such investigation can then be rolled into a Special Counsel investigation to further investigate. A Special Counsel can be enacted by a call from a bureaucrat or official in the government. Congress itself can also take up similar investigations on a Republican.

Naturally, the scenario above would be against all rules and ethics to apply it to Democrat candidates. (that rule was enacted after the pretend Hillary probe of nothingness) Republicans trying to resist these rules or complaining about them is severely frowned on. Basically, a Democrat is exempt from those extraneous rules. Democrats are entitled to any protections or privileges from such investigation(s).

As I explained to my Martian friend, it is nice to know what the rules are anyway.

(This column may be revised later – as rules evolve further.)

Right Ring | Bullright

Gov restricts employers rights

Just when you think you have seen everything, and government invading or intruding on any private sector act, along come these new rules to take it to a whole new level. Basically, it infringes on employers’ being able to use outside legal council or seek advise on unionization. An attempt to restrict and limit employers seeking union advice.

New labor regs could violate First Amendment, lawyer-client confidentiality

By Eric Boehm / March 24, 2016 | Watchdog.org

Employers will have the federal government looking over their shoulder if they discuss unionization issues with outside legal counsel under a final rule released Wednesday by the Department of Labor.

Unions are vocal supporters of the new regulations, which give them a leg-up in organizational activities, but some lawyers worry that the new regulations violate employers’ First Amendment rights and privileged communication between attorneys and clients.

The so-called “Persuader Rule” has been a contentious issue since it was first proposed more than four years ago. The final version requires businesses to disclose whether they sought outside consultation or legal assistance as part of any effort to oppose their workers’ unionization.

The Department of Labor is greatly limiting businesses’ ability to obtain labor relations advice from attorneys, consultants and trade associations, said Kristen Swearingen, vice president of political affairs for the national branch of Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group of open shops.

Since most small businesses don’t have in-house legal teams, the rule piles new mandates on small businesses, ABC warned.

“No employer should have to wade through the final rule’s 446 pages to figure out whether they can safely get advice on what they can say to their employees,” said Swearingen. “The final rule is clearly an attempt by DOL to restrict employers from communicating the potential pros and cons of unionization.”

The National Association of Manufacturers says the new rules violate employers’ First Amendment rights and promised to challenge them in court. […/]

“It’s a matter of basic fairness,” Perez [Sec of Labor] said. “This new rule will allow workers to know whether the messages they’re hearing are coming directly from their employer or from a paid, third-party consultant.”

Read more: http://watchdog.org/260447/new-labor-regs-issued/

Basic fairness? Only government can do something overtly unfair and biased then call it “fairness.” So pry into management’s office and board rooms. Once again, issued as a rule. No legislation, just instituted as a rule. It also puts a target on any lawyers giving advice. They can be subject to retaliation. So it limits businesses and inhibits attorneys.

CFACT: Out of Control & Lawlessness

Out of control


CFACT

Friend,

Is our government out of control?

Unelected bureaucrats are seizing control of our energy industry, killing jobs and hamstringing our economy.

No sector appears safe.

CFACT’s Paul Driessen lays out the staggering facts at CFACT.org:

“No one even knows how many Executive Branch agencies there are – estimates range from 60 to 438 – much less how many new rules they implement and impose each year. Officially, [CEI’s Clyde Wayne] Crews says, they issued a staggering 3,554 new rules in 2014, while President Obama signed ‘only’ 226 new laws enacted by Congress. Worse, of the 53,838 (!) formal final regulations included in the Federal Register from 2001 through 2014, only 160 (0.3%) received a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis; we have no idea how the rest affect us.”

Ironically, President Obama is attempting to invoke the rule of law as requiring a vote on his nominee to the Supreme Court.  Yet the Constitution requires no such thing.

“The Constitution is not a living organism,”  Justice Scalia reminded us,  “It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”

Take a look at the full report Paul Driessen has compiled at CFACT.org.

He makes a frightening case.  We need to reduce the size of all this government and get it back under control.

Craig Rucker
Executive Director

 

Read Paul Driessen’s report: http://www.cfact.org/2016/03/23/washingtons-despotic-lawlessness/

Washington is out of control. Legislators, judges and unelected bureaucrats want to control our lives, livelihoods and living standards, with no accountability even for major errors, calculated deception, or deliberate, often illegal assaults on our liberties and on citizens who resist the advancing Leviathan.

These themes animate Republican and conservative politics because they are happening – regularly. [more..]

 

Years back, Fmr jurist Sandra Day O’Connor said that about 85% of SCOTUS cases deal with federal regulations, despite all the public attention certain cases receive.

President Bambi, Legislator-in-Chief, Suffers Setback on Illegal IRS Rules

A spec of sanity surfaces in DC.

pundit from another planet

king-obama “The  IRS  may not unilaterally expand its authority through such an expansive, atextual, and ahistorical reading of” the law. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used these words in a Feb. 11 ruling that struck down an  Obama administration  regulation on tax preparers.

Federal judges should copy this phrase and be ready to paste it into rulings — sometimes replacing “IRS” with “Health and Human Services” — as President Obama continues to act as legislator in chief, making and amending laws as he sees fit, separation of powers be damned.

In the same week Obama illegally delayed the employer mandate and out of thin air created a bizarre loyalty oath to administer to companies suffering from Obamacare, a federal court unanimously smacked down his IRS for executive overreach.

View original post 406 more words