US Needs One Immigration Policy, Not 700

"The Congress shall have power ... to establish a uniform rule of naturalization ... throughout the United States." -- U.S. Constitution, Article 1.

The Appellate Courts of the 4th and 9th circuits had affirmed most of the Preliminary Injunctive Relief granted against President Trump's Executive Order No 2 by lower district courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has now unanimously stayed those appellate court orders -- except as to those "foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." (i.e., "the exception")

The court has set hearing on the merits of all issues of the consolidated cases for October 2017.


Were I writing the President's Supreme Court brief on the main issue (note: not on "the exception"], appealing from the 9th Circuit's Immigration rulings, my brief would go something like this:

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Galvan v. Press, stated that under Article I of the Constitution, the power to make immigration laws “is entrusted exclusively to Congress.”

In Fiallo v. Bell, the Supreme Court stated, "Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens. ... The conditions of entry for every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification ... have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress.”

So, what if Congress, in an exercise of exclusive power to make immigration laws, were to make the following hypothetical findings and law?

"The unrestricted entry into the United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen would be detrimental to the interests of the United States and directs that the entry of nationals from those designated countries be barred for 90 days."

Would the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, or any other federal court have power to enjoin that exercise of congressional power?

What is the meaning of the word "exclusive?" Does Congress have "exclusive" power, if a court can enjoin exercise of that power?

If the power to make immigration laws “is entrusted exclusively to Congress,” and is "solely the responsibility of the Congress," that power is neither "exclusive" or "sole" if any court can bar Congress from exercising that power.

But what if Congress delegates its power to control immigration to the president -- the chief executive? Indeed, in the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, Section 212(f), that is precisely what Congress did.

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

In writing that law, Congress exercised its "EXCLUSIVE" power over immigration. It delegated its "exclusive" power to make "findings" [president finds] to the president. It also delegated to the president, its "exclusive" power to "deem what is appropriate" [he "may deem to be appropriate"].


So, if the president "deems it appropriate" to bar entry by nationals from six countries where Muslims are slaughtering Muslims for 90 days because he fears that at least some of those immigrants or refugees will bring their "holy wars" here, and that that would be detrimental to our security, can any court second-guess him? Make its own determination of what is detrimental? What vetting is appropriate and required for our national security?

Under Section 212(f), the president alone, as chief executive, has been designated by Congress as Congress' agent. Pursuant to that delegation, President Trump has made his executive order.

(The "hypothetical legislation" set out above is a verbatim excerpt lifted from President Trump's Revised Immigration Executive Order, EO No. 2.)

The main question which the Supreme Court will decide in October is who decides whether the president's finding is legally sufficient? Who decides whether immigration from a particular country will be detrimental to the U.S.? The president, or 700 federal court judges? Will we have one immigration policy, or 700?

If you think the latter, what competence does any judge have to manage immigration?

National security? The answer is obvious: NONE.

Posted: QCOline.com July 3, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Legitimate Investigation or Boodless Coup?

"I am being investigated for firing the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director?" -- President Trump, June 1.

In my May 17 op-ed, I detailed deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein's recommendations to the attorney general suggesting FBI Director James Comey be fired.

"Over the past year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice.

"I cannot defend the Director's (Comey's) handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary (Hillary) Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.

"The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them.

"Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions."

Now on June 14, the Trump-hating Washington Post writes, "Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, [unnamed leaking] officials say."

Now, let's look at the timeline.

On February 14, at a private White House meeting, the president said to Director Comey, "I hope you can see your way clear ... to letting Flynn go. ... He is a good guy."

From February 14 until June 8, Comey made no complaint that the president attempted to "pressure him for any inappropriate reason."

On May 3, Comey testified under oath that no superior had tried to shut down the FBI's Russian meddling investigation.

"Not in my experience. ... it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something ... without an appropriate purpose. ... It’s not happened in my experience.”

On May 9, Rosenstein sent his letter to the attorney general suggesting Comey be replaced to "restore Public Confidence in the FBI."

On May 9, President Trump fired Comey, saying he acted at the suggestion of D.A.G. Rosenstein.

Then, on May 16, The New York Times wrote, "Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation."

The same day, deputy attorney general Rosenstein appoints former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to take over the investigation into Russian meddling.

On June 8, Comey swore before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the president said, "I hope you can see your way clear ... to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy." Then, for the first time, Comey said he felt the president WAS trying to pressure him. Comey, added however, that President Trump did NOT ask him to drop the FBI's broader investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election.

Comey also claimed the "President lied about why he fired me -- saying the FBI was in disarray and that it was poorly led." (Sour grapes? See Rosenstein's reason for firing Comey.)

Something very strange is going on here.

1. After his February 14 meeting with the president, Comey made no complaint of "inappropriate pressure." On May 3, before a Senate Committee, he told Sen. Mazie Hirono that "inappropriate pressure" has "not happened in his experience." Then on June 8, Comey, after being fired, flip-flops, claiming maybe he was pressured after all.

2. Next, on May 9, Rosenstein suggests Comey be replaced. President Trump then fires Comey. A week later, after Comey leaks his memo re the February 14 meeting --- which as paraphrased by the Times is contrary to Comey's May 3 sworn testimony -- Rosenstein abruptly appoints former FBI director Mueller special counsel to handle the "Russian Investigation."

3. Mueller and Comey are close friends, yet rather than recusing himself, Mueller expands the investigation to inquire if his buddy Comey was fired for "inappropriate reasons." Did Mueller's "expansion" create ethical problems? "No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person ... substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome."

4. Now CNN writes, "Three (of the 5 known) members of Mueller's team have donated (thousands of dollars) to Democrats." A fourth, Aaron Zebley, once represented former Hillary Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped manage her private email server.

So, are we watching the beginnings of a bloodless coup d'etat? Pro-Clinton lawyers investigating President Trump?

What if President Obama were still president? What if to investigate him, Rush Limbaugh's good buddy was named special counsel? What if he appointed three major GOP donors as his assistant prosecutors? What happened when a conservative recently tried to speak at Berkeley?


Posted: QCOline.com June 22, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Single-payer fan? Consider Illinois pension mess

Do you want single-payer health insurance? Have you considered the unintended consequences? If not, consider the ghastly mess that Illinois finds itself in as the result of creating five employee pension systems.

Illinois' Comptroller, Susana A. Mendoza, in her "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016," paints a dire picture.

"The State’s largest liability is its net pension liability. The State sponsors five public employee retirement systems that are included in the State’s financial statements as pension trust funds.



"The State is statutorily required to make contributions to these retirement systems. ... During fiscal year 2016, the net pension liability ... totaled $116.024 billion, an increase of $7.359 billion from the fiscal year 2015 balance of $108.665 billion.

"During fiscal year 2016, all of the State systems were substantially funded in accordance with the statutory funding requirement. ... However, the State’s 50-year funding plan does not conform to the Actuarial Standards of Practice, and although the statutory contribution requirements were met, the statutory funding method generates a contribution requirement that is less than a reasonable actuarial determined contribution."

The Institute for Illinois' Fiscal Sustainability at the Civic Federation writes that for FY2016, the taxpayers of Illinois contributed $7,537,200,000 to the five funds:

1. $3,742,700,000 to the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS);

2. $2,044,900,000 to the State Employees' Retirement System (SERS);

3. $1,601,500,000 to the State Universities' Retirement System (SURS);

4. $132,100,000 to the Judges' Retirement System (JRS);

5. $16,100,000 to the General Assembly Retirement System (GARS).

For Illinois to make its $7.537 billion contribution to the five retirement funds means that a lot of Illinois taxpayers had to pay a lot of money so that retired state employees could have comfortable retirements. But as Comptroller Mendoza says, even with that $7.537 billion contribution, during fiscal year 2016, the net pension liability increased by $7.359, so as to stand at $116.024 billion at the end of FY 2016. Bottom line: The $7.537 billion contributed was about half of what was needed to keep the net pension liability from increasing.

So, how did Illinois get in this mess? It began with the best of intentions: "Illinois should provide a comfortable retirement for its loyal employees." Unforeseen factors then intervened. For example, the legislature found other "worthier programs" and began making reduced contribution" to the pension systems. By the end of FY2016, the underfunding created a "net pension liability" of $116.024 billion.

Then, of course, salaries increased. When I was sworn in as a judge in December 1974, circuit judges were paid $30,000 per annum. By the time I retired, at the end of 1999, $122,000. Judges who served 20 years earned a pension of 85 percent of their last day's salary. Did the legislators, who created the systems, envision that judges would be paid pensions on about $30,000? $122,000? It makes quite a difference.


To pay the 2016 state contribution of $7.537 billion to the five pension funds, the state has to tax $200 billion (at a tax rate of 3.75 percent) worth of income, earned by Illinois individuals and corporations.

If a retiree's pension is $170,000, his neighbors have to earn $4,533,333 (taxed at a tax rate of 3.75 percent) to pay that pension for one year. If a retiree's annual pension is $52,000, the neighbors have to earn $1,386,666 to pay that pension for one year.

I am forever grateful to my neighbors for paying my judicial pension. I have no doubt everybody who is receiving an Illinois pension feels the same.

At the same time, it is very clear that funding these five systems has created substantial unanticipated burdens on every Illinois taxpayer today -- and probably on their children for years to come, as well as on every Illinois Corporation.

So before you clamor for single-payer health insurance, or any other government program, think about the Illinois pension mess. Beware of unintended consequences.

Has Obamacare kept all its promises?

The idea of the omniscient state taking care of citizens' every need isn't new. The USSR tried it for 70 years, before collapsing. Oil-rich Venezuela embarked on a similar course in 1998. Today, the country is in utter turmoil.

Posted: QCOline.com June 11, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

NY Times Story Shows Trouble with Trusting Leaks

On May 16, The New York Times published a piece captioned, "Comey memo says Trump asked him to end Flynn investigation."

The Times writes that "it has not viewed a copy of the memo ... but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter."

According to the Times, the memo says President Trump said to Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go ... He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

The Times ballyhoos this as the "clearest evidence yet that Mr. Trump tried to influence the government’s inquiry into possible links between his associates and Russia."

Evidence? Really?

What the Times labels as evidence is not competent evidence. It is hearsay -- indeed, double hearsay, and perhaps triple hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, not subject to cross-examination, and not made under oath so as to render the alleged declarant liable to penalties of perjury. Without some guarantee of trustworthiness, hearsay is inadmissible in court.

What the Times has done is very similar to a police officer coming before a judge, and presenting his affidavit which says only "a reliable informant told me that he has seen President Trump unlawfully taking Russian rubles from the Russian Ambassador," and asking for a warrant to search the president's wallet for said rubles.

The Fourth Amendment requires that an affidavit for a search warrant must show probable cause to believe that the contraband is on the person or at the place to be searched. "Probable cause is determined from the "totality of the circumstances" (facts) stated in the affidavit."

Where, however, an informant's statement is used to secure the warrant, the unsworn statement is not subject to the penalties of perjury. As such, other compensating "guarantees of trustworthiness" must be presented.

Sufficient "facts" -- not "conclusions" -- must be presented to the judge so he can make his independent determination that what the informant told the officer is more probably reliable than not.

In this example, as well as in the Times' account, no facts are set out to allow the reader to reasonably find the source is reliable.

If the memo exists, it is hearsay. If it exists, what guarantees it is truthful?

What Comey's associate allegedly told the Times' reporter is also hearsay.

He read parts. Accurately? All relevant parts? Only the most damaging parts? What guarantees the associate is truthful?

Finally, there is no guarantee the reporter's account is a fair summary.

Even if the memo, and the two accounts are accurate, what's wrong with the president saying "Flynn's a good guy. I hope you can let him go."

Did Comey really think the president was pressuring him to do something wrong? Not if you read Comey's May 3 sworn testimony.

Sen. Hirono: “So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

Comey: “In theory, yes.”

Hirono: “Has it happened?”

Comey: “Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that 'we don’t see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it.' But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”

That version of the facts is entirely consistent with the May 11 sworn testimony of acting FBI director Andrew McCabe before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Sen. Rubio: "Has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped, or negatively impacted any of the work, any of the investigations or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?"

McCabe: "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. ... Quite simply put, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution."

If it would be a "very big deal" for somebody at the FBI to "stop something for a political reason," wouldn't it be an even bigger deal for someone in the White House to do the same?

If it happened, why didn't Comey mention it when he was sworn to tell the whole truth? Did he just forget?


Posted: QCOline.com June 4, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Comey's Boss Makes Strong Case for his Firing

In his "Memorandum to the Attorney General" recommending the dismissal of FBI director James Comey, deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, Comey's immediate superior, begins by setting out the damage Comey has done to the FBI:

"Over the past year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice.”

Rosenstein then writes, "I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken."

Rosenstein then set out his principal charge of misconduct.

"The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.

"It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors.

"The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict.

"But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department.

"There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General.

"On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders."

Rosenstein then points out that Comey compounded his error.

"The Director [then] ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation."

Rosenstein condemns the specifics of that press conference.

"The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

"The goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference.

Rosenstein then explained the line between the FBI's duties, and prosecutorial duties.

"The goal [of the FBI] is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then -- if prosecution is warranted -- let the judge
and jury determine the facts."

Rosenstein rejects Comey's claim that his failure to hold the press conference would have been tantamount to concealment.

"When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open [sic:close?] a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.”

Rosenstein said that judgment is consistent with the views of former attorneys general and deputy attorneys general -- from different eras and both political parties.


Judge Laurence Silberman, deputy attorney general under President Ford: "it is not the [FBI's] responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted."

According to Silberman, Comey's "Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover."

Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush, opines that the director had eschewed FBI traditions, and "chose personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness."

Both Silberman and Gorelick concluded that Comey had violated his duty to "preserve, protect and defend" the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey under President George W. Bush, observed the director "stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion" because the FBI

director "doesn't make that decision."

Eric Holder, President Clinton's deputy attorneys general and President Obama's attorney general, stated Comey's decision "was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season."

Holder concluded that Comey "broke with these fundamental principles ... negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI."

Rosenstein concludes, "The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them."

"Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions."

Rosenstein appointment as deputy AG was confirmed by a nonpartisan 94-6 Senate vote. Sen. Charles Schumer said, “He had developed a reputation for integrity.”

Posted: QCOline.com May 17, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Of Cats, Slaves and the Unborn Child

When a court says something is “legal," does that make it “moral?” For the sake of discussion, consider three quite disparate things: cruelty to animals, abortion and slavery.

On May 2, this paper ran an article about a former Galva resident who used a pellet gun to shoot a cat in the eye, and who was charged with Aggravated Cruelty to Animals, a Class 4 felony (which carries the possibility of 1-3 years imprisonment).

I have no sympathy for people who shoot out the eyes of cats. For me, the conduct should be illegal. I also think it’s immoral. But there is another "cruelty" -- that to a viable unborn child -- that shocks me far more.


In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote "Abortion methods vary depending to some extent on the preferences of the physician ... the term of the pregnancy and the resulting stage of the unborn child’s development.

"Between 85 and 90 percent of the approximately 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States take place in the ... first trimester.

"Of the remaining abortions ..., most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure referred to as “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E” is the usual abortion method in this trimester. Although individual techniques for performing D&E differ, the general steps are the same.

"The doctor ... inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety ...

Have you sympathy for that fetus? Since Roe v. Wade, women have had the legal right to abortion. The fetus generally has had no rights; merely a duty to die.

One-hundred and fifty years ago, Abe Lincoln, during his Galesburg debate with Senator Stephen A. Douglas for the open Illinois U.S. Senate seat, drew a distinction between legality and morality. For Lincoln, slavery was a "legal right," but not a "moral right." For Lincoln, slavery was a moral wrong.

"Every thing that emanates from Sen. Douglas, or his coadjutors, ... carefully excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery -- that there is anything whatsoever wrong in slavery.

"If you will take the Judge's speeches -- his declaration that he "doesn't care whether slavery is voted up or down" -- you will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is (morally) wrong.

"If you do admit that it is (morally) wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he doesn't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down.


"Judge Douglas declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong

in it, he cannot logically say that anybody has a (legal) right to do (moral) wrong."

Now, substitute the word "abortion" for the word "slavery" in Lincoln's speech.

A cat is not a person. Yet, our laws protect cats. A fetus, even if viable (even one minute before birth), is not a person -- but only in a legal or "constitutional sense" (because it is not yet born). Medically and scientifically, that fetus is unquestionably a human person. Since the fetus carried both maternal and paternal DNA, it is a human person distinct from either parent.

So, should a cat have greater protections in our courts than second and third trimester unborn children who are "viable?”

The slave owner closed his eyes to the moral question. Are those who demand "abortion on demand" doing the same?

Posted: QCOline.com May 12, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Republican Choice: Support Trump or Lose

On May 28, Republicans and Democrats compromised - to continue the status quo! The Congressional short-term funding bill, which avoids a government "shut-down," calls for $1.07 trillion in government spending. All those Americans who have wished for "compromise" and "more of the same," got what they wanted. Those Americans who voted for President Trump's platform -- to "drain the swamp" -- have been "given the bird" and told Mr. Trump's election counts for nothing.

The bill provides no funding for President Trump's wall along the Mexican border. It continues to provide federal funds to sanctuary cities. It continues subsidies for both Obamacare and Planned Parenthood.

The Americans who voted for President Trump should be furious. Republicans, and others who voted for President Trump, gave the Republicans a 54 to 46 majority in the Senate, a 238 to 193 majority in the House, and the presidency. The president needs 50 supporters in the Senate (plus the VP) and 216 in the House. Americans who elected Trump, elected Republican congressmen to support him; not to side with Democrats.


So what are the Republican hacks in the House and Senate doing? Undermining the president's agenda. With these dolts in office, who needs a Democratic opposition?

How many times during the last eight years did the Republican Congress vote to defund Obamacare, only to have former president Barack Obama veto their bill? Now that they have majorities in both Houses, plus a Republican president who would approve their Obamacare de-funding, they lack the guts to pass a simple de-funding bill. Why not dust off a de-funding bill that Obama vetoed and send it to President Trump?

What grows clearer daily, is that feckless Republicans in the House and Senate who refuse to support the President's agenda, need to be sent packing - even at the risk of seeing their seats go to the Democrats. To borrow a phrase from Mrs. Clinton, if every (Republican in name only) RINO was replaced by a Democrat, "What difference would it make?" Do we really need Republican "denizens of the swamp" obstructing the president? Aren't the Democrats doing that job well enough?

The RINOs give every appearance of fearing that if they vote to repeal Obamacare, all those on Obamacare -- most of whom wouldn't vote for a Republican if the Republican was their mother -- will vote against them. But if a repeal is bad, why did they vote for it during the Obama years? Political theater? If so, they deserve to be relegated to the scrap heap of history.

As I watch this Republican theater of the absurd unfold, I feel as if I am watching a comic opera -- as if Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe is being staged in the halls of Congress, rather than Parliament. Did “Private Willis” not “nail it?"

"When in that house M.P.'s divide,

If they've a brain or cerebellum, too.

They've got to leave that brain outside,

And vote just as their leaders, tell 'em to.

But then the prospect of a lot of dull M.P.'s in close proximity

All thinking for themselves, is what

No man can face with equanimity."

Trump won the election despite the opposition of the Democrats and many "establishment" Republicans. If the "establishment Republicans" think their party will prosper scuttling the Trump agenda, and doing nothing, they are nuts.

If Trump abdicates leadership of the Republican Party to the Republican "denizens of the swamp," he will lose the support of the people who elected him. If he wants to see his agenda made law, he can't "lead from behind."

Trump was elected by conservatives -- not liberals, not progressives, not RINOs. His base will support him only so long as he fairly and vigorously fights for what he promised during his campaign. He only has one choice, "drain the swamp" or be sucked into it. If he has to encourage primary fights to get the RINOs aboard, then so be it.

The president's "friends" are not in Washington, D.C. They are in the states that gave him his 304 electoral votes. Republican Congressmen have a choice: support Trump's agenda, or lose your majorities.

Posted: QCOline.com May 6, 2017

Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea