Tag Archives: Donald Trump

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

Trump’s Foreign Policy: Obama’s Third Term, Bush’s Fifth

Leave a comment
English: President George W. Bush and Presiden...
President George W. Bush and President-elect Barack Obama meet in the Oval Office of the White House Monday, November 10, 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti- war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances,” Illinois State Senator Barack Obama said in 2002. Later in the same speech: “What I am opposed to is a dumb war.”

Although elected president at least in part on his image as “the peace candidate,” Obama owned eight years of constant war. He waffled on then partially reversed the withdrawal from Iraq negotiated by his predecessor. He stretched the eight-year Afghanistan war to 16 years and counting.  He began or expanded operations in Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen, escalating even to extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens.

On foreign policy, Obama served George W. Bush’s third and fourth terms. Now Donald Trump looks set to serve Bush’s fifth term  and/or Obama’s third.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump threaded the same rhetorical needle as pre-presidency Obama, referencing “bad deals” instead of “dumb wars.” Like Obama, he touted his disapproval of the Iraq war. He took Bush’s “humbler foreign policy” campaign rhetoric a step further and publicly floated the possibility of dissolving NATO. Even the future of US military support and financial aid to Israel seemed to be (briefly) up for discussion.

Those watching closely noticed, of course, that Trump was very much back and forth on foreign policy.

One minute he talked like a non-interventionist. The next minute he railed about “rebuilding”   a US military that’s already the most powerful and expensive war machine on the face of the earth and has been since World War II.

One minute he was for good relations with other countries, the next he was threatening to reverse Obama’s two real foreign policy successes, the nuclear deal with Iran and the thawing of relations with Cuba.

He soothed the Israel lobby with a speech to its main organization, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), reversing his previous claim to “neutrality” in the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine and promising eternal support for the Israeli (read: for Likud) side of that conflict.

Trump is nothing if not a masterful performer. He managed to play both sides of the foreign policy coin, signaling “business as usual with extra jingoism” to hawks and “less interventionism” to doves.

Unfortunately, as with Obama, many doves — even some libertarians, who ought to have known better — fell for it. And some of them still ARE falling for it.

Since taking office, Trump has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it is indeed business as usual. The drone strikes continue. Navy SEALs have murdered dozens of civilians including an 8-year-old American girl in Yemen. Instead of withdrawing US troops from Syria, Trump touts escalation of American involvement with the establishment of “safe zones” to corral war refugees. He’s even turned on his supposed friend Vladimir Putin, promising an extension of sanctions against Russia on behalf of Ukraine’s regime.

Time to take off the rose-colored glasses. Donald Trump is the War Party’s dream president.

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