BloggeRhythms

Very slow news day. Nothing really worth much mention. Thus, I went back to look at more detail in the Christie road-blockage case with the results pretty much the same as concluded yesterday.

 

Once made aware of the intentional closure of traffic lanes in Fort Lee, NJ, causing purposeful traffic delays, Governor Christie moved swiftly to rectify the issue, by firing his deputy chief of staff. And, according to Fox News on-line: “He [also] sidelined his former campaign manager, nixing a lucrative contract and shutting him out of a plum job at the helm of the state GOP. Two Port Authority officials previously had resigned.”

 

The same article then went on to note that: “By contrast, the Obama administration's meandering response to three major controversies -- the Benghazi attack, the IRS targeting scandal, and the botched ObamaCare rollout -- often has seemed less decisive.”

 

In that regard, the article points out that: “The administration's commitment to thoroughly investigating these issues was called into question again this week after it was revealed that the point person investigating the IRS scandal is an Obama backer who has donated thousands to his two presidential campaigns.

 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Thursday urged Attorney General Eric Holder to take the donor off the case.

By selecting a significant donor to President Obama to lead an investigation into the inappropriate targeting of conservative groups, the Department has created a startling conflict of interest, they wrote.” 

But it gets even more preposterous than that because reading further reveals totally ridiculous premises in federal law.

In response to Congressmen Issa and Jordan’s request, the Justice Department “balked” replying “it would be contrary to Department policy and a prohibited personnel practice under federal law to consider the political affiliation of career employees or other non-merit factors in making personnel decisions." 

Furthermore, a statement from the Justice Department added: “Additionally, removing a career employee from an investigation or case due to political affiliation, as Chairmen Issa and Jordan have requested, could also violate the equal opportunity policy and the law." 

So, here we have policies and laws creating governmental Catch-22’s whereas employees making politically motivated decisions harmful to the opposition can’t be curtailed or replaced because political affiliation doesn’t even exist  in the eyes of the law. 

 

And what’s even worse is that employees actually using political affiliation violates “equal opportunity,” which is totally ridiculous because their opposition isn’t even in the discussion and therefore has no “opportunity” whatsoever at all. 

So, I guess today’s question is where the divide comes between those running states and those heading the nation. Because both work with basically the same sets of rules. Therefore, maybe it isn't what’s in the law books that counts at all, but simply a matter of attitude between those choosing to serve the public versus those only pleasing themselves and their cause.

That’s it for today folks.

Adios