Category Archives: Op-Eds

Op-Eds

That’s Hypocrisy: DC Swamp Creatures vs. Kellyanne Conway

Leave a comment

Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, as well as various “watchdog” groups, are up in arms over $99 textured open-front cardigans, $125 suede slingback pumps, and $98 pebbled leather crossbody bags. Yes, really.

In an appearance on Fox and Friends, presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway made the mistake of doing the obvious: When the subject of Ivanka Trump’s  eponymous clothing line came up (because Nordstrom’s department stores are dropping Ivanka’s products), she spoke supportively of her boss’s daughter: “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff, is what I would tell you …. I’m going to give it a free commercial here, go buy it today.”

Apparently that’s a big deal.

US Representatives Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Elijah Cummings (D-MD) of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, signed a letter seeking an ethics investigation.  Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics. The White House says it has “counseled” Conway.

Talking up a presidential family member’s business when it’s in the news is an ethics violation? My hypocrisy meter is pinging in the red zone right about now.

Members of Congress continually vote to fork over billions of dollars to companies whose executives make large campaign contributions and whose lobbyists buy lots of drinks and steaks. When they’re done being in Congress, they draw lavish salaries from positions on the boards of, or as lawyers or lobbyists for, those same companies.

Ditto former presidents and former cabinet officials. Does anyone really believe that former Secretary of State Hillary racked up $5 million in speaking fees in 15 months  because she’s a great orator with wonderful, innovative ideas? She knocked that kind of money down as payment for past favors and, as a prospective president, down payment for future ones.

Sure, the Beltway establishment occasionally offers up a human sacrifice as proof of its moral rectitude. Former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) paid a $300,000 fine and eventually resigned when charged with 84 ethics violations.  Former US Representative Randy Cunningham was sentenced to eight years in prison for accepting millions of dollars in bribes. But they’re the exceptions, not the rule.

If I had to guess, I’d guess there will be plenty of actual White House corruption to complain about in the coming four years. Going after Kellyanne Conway for saying nice things about Ivanka Trump’s clothing line is a cheap shot from people who do far worse every day.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Sorry, Judge Napolitano: Immigration Isn’t “Foreign Policy”

8 Comments
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for...
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By the time you read this, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may have handed down a ruling for or against president Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel and immigration from seven countries. Two states (Washington and Minnesota) are suing to kill that order.

Andrew Napolitano — a prominent constitutionalist and libertarian commentator, not to mention a former New Jersey Superior Court judge — writes in Reason that the states don’t have legitimate standing to sue. Why? Because the Constitution provides for quite a bit of presidential latitude on foreign policy.

I’ll explain why Judge Napolitano is wrong on the details momentarily, but first let’s get one thing out of the way: Immigration is not a foreign policy matter. Foreign policy relates to matters outside the United States and to relations between US government and other governments around the world. Immigration relates to individuals wishing to enter and possibly reside in the United States. It is therefore a matter of domestic, not foreign, policy.

It’s also a matter constitutionally reserved to the states, which is where Judge Napolitano really steps in it. He hangs his argument for the order and against the states’ legal standing on the fact that “[a] 1952 federal statute permits the president to suspend the immigration status of any person or group whose entry into the United States might impair public health or safety or national security.”

But that statute is plainly unconstitutional, for the same reason that the states have standing. Why? Because per Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight …”

Article V of the Constitution forbids amending that provision prior to 1808, and no amendment to it has been proposed or ratified since that time. Congress scrupulously observed that restriction for nearly a century. As with many restrictions on federal power, it eventually got ignored. But it’s still “the supreme law of the land.”

The Constitution doesn’t enumerate a federal power to regulate immigration. In fact it clearly and unambiguously reserves that power to the states. That makes the statute Judge Napolitano references unconstitutional, and the executive order hinging on it void. Obviously states have standing to sue when the federal government usurps a power the Constitution reserves to them.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Hey Antifa: Free Speech is Not Negotiable

1 Comment
Antifa Graffiti
Antifa Graffiti (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On February 1, a gang of violent thugs managed to shut down a speech scheduled to take place at the University of California at Berkeley, metaphorically making the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s  into that movement’s grave site.

The scheduled speaker, sponsored by the campus’s student Republican group, was “alt-right” clown cum agitator Milo Yiannopoulos.

The gang of rock-throwing arsonists identified themselves as “Antifa” activists.

“Antifa” is short for “anti-fascist,” but the actions of those identifying with the Antifa movement falsify the implied claim. Antifa activists tend to show up whenever and wherever they sense an opportunity to use violence to silence speech they disagree with.

Not to fight fascism, to silence speech. Not just fascist speech, but any speech they happen to disagree with or that they just think they might bring attention to themselves by attacking.

They also frequently pretend to be anarchists.

Let’s be very clear about this:

Antifa is not an anti-fascist movement. It is a violent authoritarian movement that creatively brands and markets itself as anti-fascist.

Nor is Antifa an anarchist movement. Violent authoritarianism which attempts to suppress the dissemination of ideas through speech — to rule the minds and mouths of others through force — is not anarchism even if it formally eschews the state as its instrument of coercion.

An anarchist acquaintance of mine considers my free speech fundamentalism to constitute evidence that I’m a “liberal” (in the classical sense, emphasis on civil liberties) rather than a libertarian and, yes, an anarchist. I disagree, but if that’s the case I guess I’ll just have to live with whatever designation my beliefs imply.

To my mind, a free society must necessarily be composed of free people. People who don’t enjoy freedom of thought and speech are not free. No free speech, no free people. No free people, no free society. It’s really just that simple.

I’m not a pacifist, mind you. I’ve spent plenty of time in protests and have done at least my share of facing down klansmen and other fascists, not to mention riot police. If it comes down to combat, it does. But I’m not going to be the one to start it. People who are confident that their ideas are better than the other guys’ ideas don’t need to throw the first punch.

If you violently oppose free speech, you’re humanity’s enemy. And humanity should treat you as such.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY