Meet Elizabeth Warren—Native American

Meet Elizabeth Warren—Native American

California is not the only liberal state with candidates who routinely lie and exaggerate those parts of their lives which will appeal to their large politically-correct constituency. If you can’t be a black woman, or a wise Latina, there’s always your popular victim ethnic background—be a Native American. I would use the old-fashioned “Indian,” but the Democrats have already proven they don’t much like Bobby Jindal.

So---here’s Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Senatorial candidate. She’s running against Republican Scott Brown. Brown won the seat that had been called the “Kennedy seat” for decades, handing the Democrats a very embarrassing defeat. The Democrats are not about to let that white, pickup-driving man hold onto that seat. So they picked a woman who has in the past claimed to be a Native American. In fact, it was one of the items which originally got her teaching positions at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard.

The truth is that Warren is about as much a Native American as her counterpart, the disgraced Ward Churchill, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The number of Americans whose families have been here for a long time includes a great many who have some Native American blood. Most are proud of their heritage, but rarely declare themselves Native Americans when their genes are 1/32 or less tribal. If anything Warren says about her bloodline is true, she is at most 1/32 Native American.

Warren first tried to establish her political bona fides with the common folk of Massachusetts by calling herself “the Okie from Harvard.” She was indeed born in Oklahoma City, but has spent most of her life living elsewhere, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. But before she tried to pass off that ½ truth, she first did her 1/32 truth in order to get preference for her teaching positions. When early reports came out showing that she had at least distorted her ethnic heritage in order to get preference for teaching positions, she waffled.

Instead of addressing directly the issue of her thin Native American bloodline, she indignantly denied that she had ever used that heritage to gain an advantage over other applicants for the positions. Even if that was partially true, there’s no question that she enhanced the original story as she moved from job to job, by calling herself a “minority professor.” She attended professional meetings and forums specifically as a minority professor. But knowing the best defense is a good offense, she got officials at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, University of Texas, and the University of Houston to state the she had not used her Native American heritage in order to get teaching positions there.

Well, what else would you expect? The criteria for hiring one potential professor over another are very arcane and secretive, and in this day of affirmative action backlash and anti-discrimination public hiring laws, no institution is going to admit that ethnicity was a determining factor. Still, those same universities proudly went along with Warren’s description of herself as a minority professor. Needless to say, Warren is blaming Scott Brown partisans for raising a “phony issue.” The mainstream media are assisting Warren, of natch. The Washington Post asks "why is this non-issue being treated as if it were important news?"

For a law professor and now a professional politician, Warren is not very good at deflecting criticism or arguing a point coherently (which actually qualifies her to be Barack Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee). At a recent press conference, Warren babbled about her use of the minority professor gambit. “I listed myself for nearly a decade as a minority law teacher in order to connect with others like me.” She then stumbled over why she de-listed herself as a minority professor when she no longer needed the leg up.

And then she managed to prove herself another racist liberal by stating that she never really claimed to be a Native American, "it was all about stories passed on in her family for decades." Most importantly, she identifies with Native Americans because her grandfather “had the high cheekbones possessed by all Native Americans." Is that anything like “a typical white person?” The schools she taught at never listed her as being specifically Native American, but went along with the minority professor gag. She alone embellished her tribal roots.

If Harvard wasn’t affected by her claims which resulted in her hiring and granting of tenure, they did a very good imitation of it. When administration officials were questioned about the issue, the reply was that even though they had never hired a professor from a second-tier law school for a professor’s position, her expertise on debtor/creditor law pushed her into top contention. And they were proud to have such a notable minority professor. The Harvard Crimson was a bit less scrupulous about her claims. The campus paper published several articles in which Warren touted her connections to the Delaware and Cherokee tribes.

In the long run, this may be a tempest in a teapot. But given her exaggerations about being the Okie Harvard professor and a Native American, one has to wonder what else she has been distorting about her life and credentials. If this turns out to be a pattern, she may find that her attempts to blend in with the non-Harvard elite and to match Scott Brown’s genuine middle class values will end up simply looking ridiculous. Better to admit she is a Harvard elitist than to claim to be something she is provably not.

California is not the only liberal state with candidates who routinely lie and exaggerate those parts of their lives which will appeal to their large politically-correct constituency. If you can’t be a black woman, or a wise Latina, there’s always your popular victim ethnic background—be a Native American. I would use the old-fashioned “Indian,” but the Democrats have already proven they don’t much like Bobby Jindal.

So---here’s Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Senatorial candidate. She’s running against Republican Scott Brown. Brown won the seat that had been called the “Kennedy seat” for decades, handing the Democrats a very embarrassing defeat. The Democrats are not about to let that white, pickup-driving man hold onto that seat. So they picked a woman who has in the past claimed to be a Native American. In fact, it was one of the items which originally got her teaching positions at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard.

The truth is that Warren is about as much a Native American as her counterpart, the disgraced Ward Churchill, former professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The number of Americans whose families have been here for a long time includes a great many who have some Native American blood. Most are proud of their heritage, but rarely declare themselves Native Americans when their genes are 1/32 or less tribal. If anything Warren says about her bloodline is true, she is at most 1/32 Native American.

Warren first tried to establish her political bona fides with the common folk of Massachusetts by calling herself “the Okie from Harvard.” She was indeed born in Oklahoma City, but has spent most of her life living elsewhere, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. But before she tried to pass off that ½ truth, she first did her 1/32 truth in order to get preference for her teaching positions. When early reports came out showing that she had at least distorted her ethnic heritage in order to get preference for teaching positions, she waffled.

Instead of addressing directly the issue of her thin Native American bloodline, she indignantly denied that she had ever used that heritage to gain an advantage over other applicants for the positions. Even if that was partially true, there’s no question that she enhanced the original story as she moved from job to job, by calling herself a “minority professor.” She attended professional meetings and forums specifically as a minority professor. But knowing the best defense is a good offense, she got officials at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, University of Texas, and the University of Houston to state the she had not used her Native American heritage in order to get teaching positions there.

Well, what else would you expect? The criteria for hiring one potential professor over another are very arcane and secretive, and in this day of affirmative action backlash and anti-discrimination public hiring laws, no institution is going to admit that ethnicity was a determining factor. Still, those same universities proudly went along with Warren’s description of herself as a minority professor. Needless to say, Warren is blaming Scott Brown partisans for raising a “phony issue.” The mainstream media are assisting Warren, of natch. The Washington Post asks "why is this non-issue being treated as if it were important news?"

For a law professor and now a professional politician, Warren is not very good at deflecting criticism or arguing a point coherently (which actually qualifies her to be Barack Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee). At a recent press conference, Warren babbled about her use of the minority professor gambit. “I listed myself for nearly a decade as a minority law teacher in order to connect with others like me.” She then stumbled over why she de-listed herself as a minority professor when she no longer needed the leg up.

And then she managed to prove herself another racist liberal by stating that she never really claimed to be a Native American, "it was all about stories passed on in her family for decades." Most importantly, she identifies with Native Americans because her grandfather “had the high cheekbones possessed by all Native Americans." Is that anything like “a typical white person?” The schools she taught at never listed her as being specifically Native American, but went along with the minority professor gag. She alone embellished her tribal roots.

If Harvard wasn’t affected by her claims which resulted in her hiring and granting of tenure, they did a very good imitation of it. When administration officials were questioned about the issue, the reply was that even though they had never hired a professor from a second-tier law school for a professor’s position, her expertise on debtor/creditor law pushed her into top contention. And they were proud to have such a notable minority professor. The Harvard Crimson was a bit less scrupulous about her claims. The campus paper published several articles in which Warren touted her connections to the Delaware and Cherokee tribes.

In the long run, this may be a tempest in a teapot. But given her exaggerations about being the Okie Harvard professor and a Native American, one has to wonder what else she has been distorting about her life and credentials. If this turns out to be a pattern, she may find that her attempts to blend in with the non-Harvard elite and to match Scott Brown’s genuine middle class values will end up simply looking ridiculous. Better to admit she is a Harvard elitist than to claim to be something she is provably not.

Meet Elizabeth Warren—Native American

View Detail

Broke? But I Still Have Checks!

Broke? But I Still Have Checks!

When you break into your piggy bank and find it empty, perhaps you should consider that you need a budget. But last week, White House mouthpiece Jay Carney was asked about whether the Senate should pass a budget for the President’s approval or veto. Interestingly enough, Carney’s reply was that the White House has no opinion on the matter.

For a White House that has opinions on what you should eat, where you should shop, and what kind of natural resources you should be using, it seems odd it has no opinion on how your tax money should be spent.

Carney was merely repeating what he had already heard from the Senate itself. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) had earlier said that the Senate had no need to bring a budget to the Senate floor this year. After all, we’ve already gone over a thousand days without one. What’s the big deal about waiting a few months or years longer?

Lurking beneath what Carney and Reid are saying is the simple fact that Democrats don’t understand debt, deficits and economics. It also points out their reliance on quick fixes and government tinkering. Said Carney: “What the president believes is important is that the Budget Control Act that was signed into law by him last year provides the top line spending caps for the coming budget, and he will obviously meet those in the budget proposal he puts forward.”

My first question for Mr. Carney is “exactly when is the president going to put forward those proposals?” Trotting out a list of “vitally important governmental actions” (like Solyndra?) is not a budget proposal. It’s more like a setup for busting those budget caps that Carney just said he will “obviously” not bust. The second question is self-evident: “How can you have budget controls without a budget?”

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing, another issue that is dear to the hearts of conservatives and business investors was raised. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke how harmful the lack of a budget is to economic growth. Bernanke talked about something that his employer never mentions—stability and predictability. Said Bernanke: “Uncertainty about the future of the tax code and government programs has a negative effect on growth. I think it is, because firms like to have certainty—you know like to be able to plan. And again I would take on the same responsibility as the regulator, that we need to make regulations as clear and effective as possible.”

He didn’t exactly say “pass a goddam budget,” but he alluded to it. When asked about Bernanke’s testimony, Carney gave a snarky answer: “The White House has no opinion on Chairman Bernanke’s assessment of how the Senate ought to do its business.” The White House seems to have no opinion on how anybody ought to do business unless it benefits their pals or gets in the way of the administration’s social engineering. In those cases, it has opinions galore. But it still doesn’t have the opinion that if you spend more than you take in, you’re broke.

Since the White House has no opinion on Bernanke’s assessment, or on what Congress is doing for that matter, let’s go straight to the horses’ uh, mouths. Sen. Reid says “we do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done, we don’t need to do any more.” Over in the House, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) says: “The fact is, you do have a budget. We can adopt appropriations bills [and you can bet they will]. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”

See? If you just make it up as you go along, you don’t need a budget. If you spend trillions more than you take in, well, oops. To the question “who’s in charge here?” the answer is “nobody.”

Since this article was written, the President has proposed a budget. It contains lots of spending, lots of new and improved taxes, and lots of increased deficits. Like the White House earlier, I have no opinion on how Congress, business, and the Fed should react to the proposals.

When you break into your piggy bank and find it empty, perhaps you should consider that you need a budget. But last week, White House mouthpiece Jay Carney was asked about whether the Senate should pass a budget for the President’s approval or veto. Interestingly enough, Carney’s reply was that the White House has no opinion on the matter.

For a White House that has opinions on what you should eat, where you should shop, and what kind of natural resources you should be using, it seems odd it has no opinion on how your tax money should be spent.

Carney was merely repeating what he had already heard from the Senate itself. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) had earlier said that the Senate had no need to bring a budget to the Senate floor this year. After all, we’ve already gone over a thousand days without one. What’s the big deal about waiting a few months or years longer?

Lurking beneath what Carney and Reid are saying is the simple fact that Democrats don’t understand debt, deficits and economics. It also points out their reliance on quick fixes and government tinkering. Said Carney: “What the president believes is important is that the Budget Control Act that was signed into law by him last year provides the top line spending caps for the coming budget, and he will obviously meet those in the budget proposal he puts forward.”

My first question for Mr. Carney is “exactly when is the president going to put forward those proposals?” Trotting out a list of “vitally important governmental actions” (like Solyndra?) is not a budget proposal. It’s more like a setup for busting those budget caps that Carney just said he will “obviously” not bust. The second question is self-evident: “How can you have budget controls without a budget?”

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing, another issue that is dear to the hearts of conservatives and business investors was raised. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke how harmful the lack of a budget is to economic growth. Bernanke talked about something that his employer never mentions—stability and predictability. Said Bernanke: “Uncertainty about the future of the tax code and government programs has a negative effect on growth. I think it is, because firms like to have certainty—you know like to be able to plan. And again I would take on the same responsibility as the regulator, that we need to make regulations as clear and effective as possible.”

He didn’t exactly say “pass a goddam budget,” but he alluded to it. When asked about Bernanke’s testimony, Carney gave a snarky answer: “The White House has no opinion on Chairman Bernanke’s assessment of how the Senate ought to do its business.” The White House seems to have no opinion on how anybody ought to do business unless it benefits their pals or gets in the way of the administration’s social engineering. In those cases, it has opinions galore. But it still doesn’t have the opinion that if you spend more than you take in, you’re broke.

Since the White House has no opinion on Bernanke’s assessment, or on what Congress is doing for that matter, let’s go straight to the horses’ uh, mouths. Sen. Reid says “we do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done, we don’t need to do any more.” Over in the House, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) says: “The fact is, you do have a budget. We can adopt appropriations bills [and you can bet they will]. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”

See? If you just make it up as you go along, you don’t need a budget. If you spend trillions more than you take in, well, oops. To the question “who’s in charge here?” the answer is “nobody.”

Since this article was written, the President has proposed a budget. It contains lots of spending, lots of new and improved taxes, and lots of increased deficits. Like the White House earlier, I have no opinion on how Congress, business, and the Fed should react to the proposals.

Broke? But I Still Have Checks!

View Detail

The Three Great Lies

The Three Great Lies

“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.” “The check is in the mail.” “The President really looks forward to working with Congress.” The third of the three great lies was mouthed by Jay Carney, President Obama’s press secretary and full-time sockpuppet. It's hard to see how The One plans to work with Congress since his executive/bureaucratic administration has largely ignored Congress (or at least about half of Congress).

Carney spoke the words at the weekly press conference, the day after Obama made four highly-questionable recess appointments—three to the National Labor Relations Board and one to the newly-created Dodd-Frank Consumer Financial Protection Board. Those appointments may or may not be valid, but they are clearly an exercise in derogation of Congressional privilege.

After saying “the fact is, the President firmly believes he has the constitutional authority to do so,” Carney offered a diametrically opposite theory of why the President proceeded with the appointments. “It’s not about whether Congress is in session. What it’s really about is the absolute urgency to install Richard Cordray as our consumer watchdog so that he can get to work today protecting the middle class.” This isn’t only about Republicans. The Senate that soundly rejected Cordray (and one of the three NLRB appointees) is still controlled by Democrats.

Well, in this instance, it is all about whether the Senate is in session. The President “firmly believes” a lot of things which are completely wrong—historically, constitutionally, legally, economically, factually, and politically. But in this case, Carney should have stuck to defense number one. There are respected authorities who argue that Congress is not in session, and the appointments are valid. I’m not one of them, but the problem here is that Carney has announced the President’s desire “to work with Congress” while at the same time challenging Congress on its own rules. That doesn’t sound like cooperation to me. Forget the anger and acrimony over the appointments for a moment, and consider how much Obama has any intention of cooperating.

For Obama, “working with” is a synonym for “taking potshots at.” As of this writing, only one Democratic Senator has formally announced that he believes the appointments are valid and that the Senate is in recess. All other Democrats who talked about the issue at all merely praised the appointments and scrupulously avoided discussing the issue of the Senate being in pro forma session. Senate Republicans had sent a formal letter to the President in December, signed by forty-seven of the Senators, requesting that the appointments not be made during a recess. Obama ignored them, and as a result the Senate did not consent to a recess, and the House went on vacation without the required consent of the Senate (Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution).

But to make sure, the Senate avoided the three-day (or five-day) recess rule (depending on which expert you listen to) by staying in pro forma session. In his last exhibition of cooperation prior to his announcement of further cooperation (yeah, I know), the President spat in the face of the Senate. Right or wrong, the majority or near-majority of Senators believed that the pro forma session was sufficient to fend off recess appointments. Even if the President was right, which may have to be determined by the Supreme Court, the appointment of four highly-partisan and generally unpopular bureaucrats is anything but a demonstration of cooperation with Congress.

All tyrants and wannabe tyrants are in a hurry because they believe that they alone know what’s best for their nations, and waiting for any other branch of government to act is simply not acceptable. Some, like Hitler, simply declared the basic law null and void and ruled by fiat. Others, like Middle East potentates and clerics either write the basic law to suit themselves, or exercise a stranglehold on the legislatures which are charged with writing the nation’s laws. Obama hasn’t reached that point, but he’s on the path.

This President has chosen a course that is questionably constitutional, bootstrapping on the incremental power-grabs known as executive orders and recess appointments. He is not the first, but an alarming number of his executive orders seem to be aimed directly at seizing power from Congress. If Obama succeeds with these four appointments, he will have added a new chapter to executive power by establishing that Congress is not the branch which exercises power over its own rules and procedures.

Previous Presidents have acted by executive order, as well as weakening Congressional legislation with “signing statements.” Previous Presidents have made recess appointments. Then-Senator Obama somehow has changed his views on the subject since becoming President because he had opposed George W. Bush’s recess appointment of John Bolton as UN ambassador on the ground that presidents shouldn’t recess-appoint “unpopular” people whom the Senate had already rejected.

So back to the original theme. Big battles inside and between the various branches of government are not unusual and can be annoying or uplifting, depending on the subject matter of the quarrel. Even power-grabs can be politically-expedient if the president chooses to defy Congress by ignoring its own self-imposed rules. But don’t call it cooperation. Man up. Tell the truth. Don’t hide behind your questionable interpretation of the Constitution. If Obama truly “looks forward to working with Congress, these odd recess appointments are a strange way of showing it.

"Congress should do this, right away" is quickly becoming "Congress will do this right away, or else."

“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.” “The check is in the mail.” “The President really looks forward to working with Congress.” The third of the three great lies was mouthed by Jay Carney, President Obama’s press secretary and full-time sockpuppet. It's hard to see how The One plans to work with Congress since his executive/bureaucratic administration has largely ignored Congress (or at least about half of Congress).

Carney spoke the words at the weekly press conference, the day after Obama made four highly-questionable recess appointments—three to the National Labor Relations Board and one to the newly-created Dodd-Frank Consumer Financial Protection Board. Those appointments may or may not be valid, but they are clearly an exercise in derogation of Congressional privilege.

After saying “the fact is, the President firmly believes he has the constitutional authority to do so,” Carney offered a diametrically opposite theory of why the President proceeded with the appointments. “It’s not about whether Congress is in session. What it’s really about is the absolute urgency to install Richard Cordray as our consumer watchdog so that he can get to work today protecting the middle class.” This isn’t only about Republicans. The Senate that soundly rejected Cordray (and one of the three NLRB appointees) is still controlled by Democrats.

Well, in this instance, it is all about whether the Senate is in session. The President “firmly believes” a lot of things which are completely wrong—historically, constitutionally, legally, economically, factually, and politically. But in this case, Carney should have stuck to defense number one. There are respected authorities who argue that Congress is not in session, and the appointments are valid. I’m not one of them, but the problem here is that Carney has announced the President’s desire “to work with Congress” while at the same time challenging Congress on its own rules. That doesn’t sound like cooperation to me. Forget the anger and acrimony over the appointments for a moment, and consider how much Obama has any intention of cooperating.

For Obama, “working with” is a synonym for “taking potshots at.” As of this writing, only one Democratic Senator has formally announced that he believes the appointments are valid and that the Senate is in recess. All other Democrats who talked about the issue at all merely praised the appointments and scrupulously avoided discussing the issue of the Senate being in pro forma session. Senate Republicans had sent a formal letter to the President in December, signed by forty-seven of the Senators, requesting that the appointments not be made during a recess. Obama ignored them, and as a result the Senate did not consent to a recess, and the House went on vacation without the required consent of the Senate (Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution).

But to make sure, the Senate avoided the three-day (or five-day) recess rule (depending on which expert you listen to) by staying in pro forma session. In his last exhibition of cooperation prior to his announcement of further cooperation (yeah, I know), the President spat in the face of the Senate. Right or wrong, the majority or near-majority of Senators believed that the pro forma session was sufficient to fend off recess appointments. Even if the President was right, which may have to be determined by the Supreme Court, the appointment of four highly-partisan and generally unpopular bureaucrats is anything but a demonstration of cooperation with Congress.

All tyrants and wannabe tyrants are in a hurry because they believe that they alone know what’s best for their nations, and waiting for any other branch of government to act is simply not acceptable. Some, like Hitler, simply declared the basic law null and void and ruled by fiat. Others, like Middle East potentates and clerics either write the basic law to suit themselves, or exercise a stranglehold on the legislatures which are charged with writing the nation’s laws. Obama hasn’t reached that point, but he’s on the path.

This President has chosen a course that is questionably constitutional, bootstrapping on the incremental power-grabs known as executive orders and recess appointments. He is not the first, but an alarming number of his executive orders seem to be aimed directly at seizing power from Congress. If Obama succeeds with these four appointments, he will have added a new chapter to executive power by establishing that Congress is not the branch which exercises power over its own rules and procedures.

Previous Presidents have acted by executive order, as well as weakening Congressional legislation with “signing statements.” Previous Presidents have made recess appointments. Then-Senator Obama somehow has changed his views on the subject since becoming President because he had opposed George W. Bush’s recess appointment of John Bolton as UN ambassador on the ground that presidents shouldn’t recess-appoint “unpopular” people whom the Senate had already rejected.

So back to the original theme. Big battles inside and between the various branches of government are not unusual and can be annoying or uplifting, depending on the subject matter of the quarrel. Even power-grabs can be politically-expedient if the president chooses to defy Congress by ignoring its own self-imposed rules. But don’t call it cooperation. Man up. Tell the truth. Don’t hide behind your questionable interpretation of the Constitution. If Obama truly “looks forward to working with Congress, these odd recess appointments are a strange way of showing it.

"Congress should do this, right away" is quickly becoming "Congress will do this right away, or else."

The Three Great Lies

View Detail

Discussion: Regulations and Rules for Unruly Representatives

Discussion: Regulations and Rules for Unruly Representatives

Congress has once again proved that they just cannot be trusted. It seems that our esteemed elected officials have been making a killing in the stock market! At the same time many members of Congress have been railing against the Evil Wall Street Robber Barons and "Banksters", they have used pending legislation and lobbyist insider information to make a killing on Wall Street. If only they used pending legislation to balance the budget or help create a healthy climate for job growth. It is getting tiresome to know that what would land private citizens hefty fines and jail time, leads only to rebukes and hand slaps for our elected officials by our elected officials.

When did our government officials stop living by the same laws, regulations, and rules that they foist on us? Probably since the beginning of time, but now is the time to stop. We, the People of Commentarama need a manifesto of regulations and rules for our unruly representatives that we must insist that they follow like the rest of us. So put your thinking caps on.

Discussion: What laws, regulation, and/or rules do our Government officials egregiously flout at the same time they insist that We The People must follow or face the full force of the law?

Congress has once again proved that they just cannot be trusted. It seems that our esteemed elected officials have been making a killing in the stock market! At the same time many members of Congress have been railing against the Evil Wall Street Robber Barons and "Banksters", they have used pending legislation and lobbyist insider information to make a killing on Wall Street. If only they used pending legislation to balance the budget or help create a healthy climate for job growth. It is getting tiresome to know that what would land private citizens hefty fines and jail time, leads only to rebukes and hand slaps for our elected officials by our elected officials.

When did our government officials stop living by the same laws, regulations, and rules that they foist on us? Probably since the beginning of time, but now is the time to stop. We, the People of Commentarama need a manifesto of regulations and rules for our unruly representatives that we must insist that they follow like the rest of us. So put your thinking caps on.

Discussion: What laws, regulation, and/or rules do our Government officials egregiously flout at the same time they insist that We The People must follow or face the full force of the law?

Discussion: Regulations and Rules for Unruly Representatives

View Detail