The Warming Science Commentariat - 10

From the book

I. Yesterday All My Troubles Seemed So Far Away

Yesterday I took a look at coups in general (A Tale of Coup Cities - 13); so today I want to focus on the global coup that began in Britain & the U.S.eh? not long after our collective entry into the 20th Century (The Universal Smedley - 2, A History of Oil Addiction - 2).

A coup that is going stronger than ever here in the 21st Century (Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States, 2, 3, 4,  Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization, 2, 3, 4, 5).

I am speaking of a coup of change (from a green world where global warming was not yet born, where peace was not yet extinct) into a world where the coup some call the addiction to oil and war now thrives (Glorious Addictions - War & Oil, 2).

From now on let's  call that coup "The Slow Train Coming".

II. Now It Looks As Though They Are Here To Stay

This coup is not one that the military planned, but they have been instrumental in perpetuating it (The Fleets and Terrorism Follow The Oil - 2).

To the contrary, they warned of it being a threat to national security in 2009 (Global Climate & Homeland Insecurity - 2), and continue to (GMACCC).

To some extent that is because, militarily, they can do nothing whatsoever to stop the coup (Why The Military Can't Defend Against The Invasion).

The policy coup that I am writing about in today's post is now even taking potshots at the military (On the Front Lines of Rising Seas: Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, Rising oceans threaten to submerge 128 military bases).

The east coast part of the coup is underway, as they look toward being underwater (Hurricane Matthew Takes Out Beaches, The Extinction of Chesapeake Bay Islands).

III. It's The Coup of The Warming Science Commentariat

The minions of Oil-Qaeda knew about the national security threat well before the military did (Smoke & Fumes, The Private Empire's Social Media Hit Squads - 2, Humble Oil-Qaeda).

Even way back then Oil-Qaeda began to spend the big bucks to dumb down the warming science commentariat (TWSC).

To this day the TWSC are still, for the most part, all too clueless:

In fact, most of our historical data on sea levels comes from devices call tide gauges. Tide gauges bob and dip with the rising and lowering sea, marking the changing levels as they go. And there are continuous gauge records going back hundreds of years [CORRECT: they have even measured sea level FALL since circa 1774].

But there's reason to believe those records may not tell the full story of how sea levels have changed [WRONG: they tell only what they know at their locations as they should ... and as TWSC should].

A study published October 9 in the journal Geophysical Research suggests a simple reason tide gauge records may lead scientists to underestimate sea level rise [WRONG: underestimating sea level rise is the IPCC's job which they do quite well thank you; tide gauge stations are even used to validate satellite telemetry ("Tide gauge data are used to validate ocean models and to detect errors and drifts in satellite altimetry" UCAR NCAR)]: There aren't enough of them [WRONG: I use about 1,400 PSMSL tide gauge station records from all over the globe], and they're in the wrong places. [WRONG: they are where the people who are endangered by sea level are ... exactly where they should be ... the marine life out in the ocean vastness is not endangered by sea level change]

Current estimates of sea level rise, drawn from tide gauge records, have the oceans gaining 1.5 to 1.8 millimeters per year [WRONG: tide gauge stations do not do global averages, they only do actual sea level measurements at their particular latitude and longitude. The "bath tub modellers" created the global average to gloss over the true nature of sea level change] - already enough to flood major cities in living lifetimes without any acceleration. (And we know it will accelerate.)

The problem is those estimates come from gauges that weren't built to track global sea levels [WRONG: that is not a "problem" it is a reality that they can't measure sea level rise other than where they are DUH!]. Instead, they're clustered around North Atlantic coastal cities [WRONG: they are all over the world, north, south, east, and west (PSMSL)], where they were initially installed to help monitor shipping lanes [WRONG: they were originally installed to measure local sea level change before cargo shipping lanes even existed]. Unfortunately, the North Atlantic may not be the best place to measure sea level rise. Meltwater from major ice sheets actually tends to flow away from there, often toward the southern hemisphere [WOW, THE AUTHOR IS A PLUMBER WHO KNOWS THAT S**T FLOWS DOWN HILL ... WHOOPIE !!].

(Monkey Business Insider). Oil-Qaeda must really take note of this valuelessness and chortle often (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder, 2, 3).

IV. Conclusion

The realm of the clueless warming science commentariat is shameless (The Warming Science Commentariat, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

---

"Yesterday [Is Gone]"

Yesterday all [our] troubles seemed so far away.
Now it looks as though they're here to stay.
Oh, [we] believe in yesterday.

Suddenly [we're] not half the [world we] used to be.
There's a shadow hanging over [us].
Oh, yesterday came suddenly.

Why [it] had to go, I don't know, [it] wouldn't say.
[we] did something wrong, now [we] long for yesterday.

Yesterday [life] was such an easy game to play.
Now [we] need a place to hide away.
Oh, [we] believe in yesterday.

...

(apologies to Beatles)

---

---

A Tale of Coup Cities - 13

Tales can come true

A "coup" in the context of this series, is an inordinate change that has taken place where it should not have ("coup ... a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move" - Dictionary).

A coup can occur without violence.

It can also take place surreptitiously, as did the coup in the U.S.eh?, which General Wesley Clark spoke of (A Tale of Coup Cities - 2).

A coup can even be noticed intellectually, then spoken of poetically without the use of the word "coup" ("In the home of the brave Jefferson is turning over in his grave" - Bob Dylan, Slow Train).

As is taught in some of the military institutions that "educate" (education is a form of indoctrination - Noam Chomsky) the coup is their traditionally preferred method of defeating an "enemy":

Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

(Is War An Art or Is War A Disease?). But, even the policy of one's own nation can become an "enemy" and deserving of a coup, according to some military intellectuals:

The U.S. military keeps searching the horizon for a peer competitor, the challenger that must be taken seriously. Is it China? What about an oil rich and resurgent Russia?

But the threat that is most likely to hobble U.S. military capabilities is not a peer competitor, rather it is health care.

(The Enemy the Pentagon Should Fear Most: Health Care). However, some of the military generals do not like non-violent coups:

The Lord is a warrior and in Revelation 19 it says when he comes back, he's coming back as what? A warrior. A mighty warrior leading a mighty army, riding a white horse with a blood-stained white robe ... I believe that blood on that robe is the blood of his enemies 'cause he's coming back as a warrior carrying a sword.

And I believe now - I've checked this out - I believe that sword he'll be

"Jesus is coming with an AR-15" - U.S. General

carrying when he comes back is an AR-15.

Now I want you to think about this: where did the Second Amendment come from? ... From the Founding Fathers, it's in the Constitution. Well, yeah, I know that. But where did the whole concept come from? It came from Jesus when he said to his disciples 'now, if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'

I know, everybody says that was a metaphor. IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR! He was saying in building my kingdom, you're going to have to fight at times. You won't build my kingdom with a sword, but you're going to have to defend yourself. And that was the beginning of the Second Amendment, that's where the whole thing came from. I can't prove that historically and David [Barton] will counsel me when this is over, but I know that's where it came from.

And the sword today is an AR-15, so if you don't have one, go get one. You're supposed to have one. It's biblical.

(Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala - 4). So much for Sun Tzu, so, one must ponder which of these military philosophies will dominate.

Will it remain the surreptitious coup, or will the violent coup take the day (Will The Military Become The Police?, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

For the time being, the surreptitious coup is for the most part able to carry the day:

President Barack Obama let Republicans have it Wednesday for their change of tune on how they might deal with Supreme Court vacancies.

Speaking at a rally for Hillary Clinton in North Carolina, the president pointed the finger at that battleground state’s Sen. Richard Burr. Obama chided Burr, who is fighting for his own re-election, over his recent vow to leave the high court short-handed for four more years if Clinton wins next week.

“Some are saying they won’t appoint a ninth Supreme Court justice at all,” Obama said. He noted Burr “just said that if Hillary wins, he’ll do everything he can to block all Supreme Court nominations.”

Since mid-October, Republican senators have been rolling out a new pretext for refusing to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Now their principles may bar them from voting for anybody nominated by a Democrat, regardless of whether the American people chose that Democrat to be president.

(Coup RE: Supreme Court Nominees, emphasis added). This type of coup may carry the day, but it will not suffice for tomorrow.

This is because of how the people have been educated to think:

In the first post of this series, we pointed out that most Americans polled in an annual Gallup Poll think that the military is the most competent institution in America.

In that post we perused Gallup Poll figures from 2009, as shown on the graphic to the left (red lines added).

Today in 2011, the military is still seen as the most competent American institution, according to this year's Gallup Poll, even though the wars they are prosecuting are not at all popular.

Let's take a look for reasons and realities as to how it is that the military, once considered the lackey for the tyranny of the tyrants, has come full circle to invade and occupy the hearts of a once freedom loving people.

(Stockholm Syndrome on Steroids? - 2, emphasis added). So, one might ask what will be done when the civil institutions, which are not as competent as the military in the mind of way too many Americans, fail to operate anymore.

What will be done when the Supreme Court becomes extinct by an ongoing coup, when the middle class becomes extinct by an ongoing coup, yes, when the America of old becomes extinct by ongoing coups?

Surely, what will replace them will be empty of public freedom, according to those who conceived embronic America in a way that it could eventually become great:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established.

(Stockholm Syndrome on Steroids? - 2, quoting The Author of the Bill of Rights). The unnerving part of this is that we can't vote our way out of it (The Elections of Pontius Pilots, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Perhaps the reason for the coup, as to the U.S. Supreme Court, is not so surreptitious a reason for a coup:

While executive officers can declare the military reasonableness of conduct amounting to torture, it is beyond the power of even the President to declare such conduct lawful. The same is true for any other applicable legal prohibition. The fact that the President -- let alone a significantly inferior executive officer -- opines that certain conduct is lawful does not determine the actual lawfulness of that conduct. The determination of specific violations of law is constitutionally committed to the courts, even if that law touches military affairs.

(U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Oct. 2016). This is the Marbury v Madison (1803) principle (Common Sense and Marbury v Madison).

That makes it clear to me why the coup in the Judicial Branch of government is under way (Here Come De Conservative Judges, Activist Judges Of The Conservative Sort, Coup: The JAG Becomes The Supreme Court).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

---

Pentagon Video Warns of “Unavoidable” Dystopian Future for World’s Biggest Cities

---

The Kiwi Factors

Fig. 1

I have written some error checking modules to do quality checks on WOD data.

I only do this to processed data, i.e. not directly on the 400 some million rows of data in the raw.

That is, I check on a per zone basis after all the data has been merged into a set of rows ranging from 1800 to the latest, and even up to the year 2100 when future projections are being done.

There is about a 2% error factor (2 rows out of 100), which also means there is excellent data about 98% of the time.

Fig. 2

Still, there is concern because some of the erroneousness data can be "poison pills."

That means they can be so wrong as to mess things up.

For example, some of the errors I noted had temperatures such as "-414.391" degrees C for ocean water measurement (the coldest valid ocean water temperature is about -2.5 degrees C).

The correction modules will detect that, then write a report, with suggested corrections based on the other data in that set.

Fig. 3

To double check on past Dredd Blog presentations, I reran many previous runs that had been used in posts concerning thermal expansion, uplifting, and the like.

The conclusion I drew is that they all hold up even with potential errors in 2% of the data.

So, absent requests to redo any graphs, etc., I will leave them as is, however, if any readers want reruns of any of them, just ask in a comment or an email and I will redo them for you.

Today's data and that in the future will all have been scrubbed by the clean up routines.

Fig. 4

Anyway, I was looking over the WOD landscape when I noticed that New Zealand had been passed over.

Fig. 5

So, I downloaded the WOD Zone data around that island nation (Zones 3316, 3317, 3416, 3417, 5317, 5417) and generated Fig. 1 with that ocean specific data.

I already had the PSMSL data for that area, so I ran it to generate Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5.

Incidentally, I mentioned, in a post or two back, that I had also acquired satellite data for global mean average sea level change.

I have that data in modules so that I can inject it into an analysis process along with the other PSMSL and WOD data.

If you will notice Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 closely, the satellite data shows up as a tiny red line blip on the scene.

Among other things, that is because it is a relatively new source of data compared to the PSMSL data which goes back to the late 1700's in some cases (SLC satellite data began in 1993).

When I fuse that GMSL SAT data to PSMSL RLR values (Fig. 4), 7000 mm is the base line, and when I use only millimeter change values (Fig. 5) zero is the base line.

One of the main benefits of adding the satellite global mean average to the graphs is to show how substantial the tide gauge records are (another benefit is how doing global mean averages glosses over a lot).

Getting back to the graphs ...

Once again, the graphs show that the main players of SLC, in terms of geography, are Antarctica, Greenland, and various land glacier conglomerations.

And once again, in terms of geophysics, the main players are displacement from ice sheet melt and disintegration, ghost-water from gravitational weakening of ice sheets and glacial masses, and the minor players thermal expansion and uplifting bring up the rear.

Here are the WOD temperature details from these zones:

WOD Zone: 3316 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 95 upward & 80 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 3.6019
• 200-400m = 1.0618
• 400-600m = 0.55522
• 600-800m = 0.01773
• 800-1000m = 0.01747
• 1000-3000m = -1.35404
• >3000m = 0.0119

Net change for 7 levels: 3.91198

Years involved: 1983 -> 2016 (33 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (3.91198 ÷ 33): 0.118545

---

WOD Zone: 3317 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 92 upward & 95 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 3.8505
• 200-400m = 0.6847
• 400-600m = 0.20999
• 600-800m = -0.21497
• 800-1000m = -0.22862
• 1000-3000m = -0.45213
• >3000m = -0.68021

Net change for 7 levels: 3.16926

Years involved: 1983 -> 2016 (33 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (3.16926 ÷ 33): 0.0960382

---

WOD Zone: 3416 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 88 upward & 90 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 2.114
• 200-400m = 0.81994
• 400-600m = 0.9363
• 600-800m = -0.14133
• 800-1000m = 0.20886
• 1000-3000m = 3.97173
• >3000m = -0.01709

Net change for 7 levels: 7.89241

Years involved: 1978 -> 2016 (38 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (7.89241 ÷ 38): 0.207695

---

WOD Zone: 3417 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 101 upward & 90 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 2.59158
• 200-400m = 0.62543
• 400-600m = 0.45108
• 600-800m = 1.4046
• 800-1000m = 0.8354
• 1000-3000m = 0.37084

Net change for 6 levels: 6.27893

Years involved: 1978 -> 2016 (38 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (6.27893 ÷ 38): 0.165235

---

WOD Zone: 5317 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 88 upward & 97 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 1.521
• 200-400m = -0.7383
• 400-600m = -1.16474
• 600-800m = -0.69747
• 800-1000m = -0.14028
• 1000-3000m = 0.23845
• >3000m = 0.31103

Net change for 7 levels: -0.67031

Years involved: 1969 -> 2016 (47 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (-0.67031 ÷ 47): -0.0142619

---

WOD Zone: 5417 (temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning temperature changes, there
were 86 upward & 85 downward changes.

Net changes per level were:

• 0-200m = 2.76345
• 200-400m = 0.95535
• 400-600m = 0.71243
• 600-800m = 0.09984
• 800-1000m = -0.06095
• 1000-3000m = 0.92256
• >3000m = -0.02907

Net change for 7 levels: 5.36361

Years involved: 1978 -> 2016 (38 yrs)

Average change per year:

• (5.36361 ÷ 38): 0.141148

---

Combined averages for 6 total WOD Zones
(temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 91 upward & 89 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:

• 0-200m = 2.7404
• 200-400m = 0.568153
• 400-600m = 0.28338
• 600-800m = 0.0780667
• 800-1000m = 0.105313
• 1000-3000m = 0.616235
• >3000m = -0.06724

Average change, all 7 levels: 4.32431

Years involved: 1969 -> 2016 (47 yrs)

Average annual combined change:

• (4.32431 ÷ 47): 0.0920067 C per year

---

In the Fog of The Presstitutes - 5

"Let's begin the auction"

I. The Money Grubbing

"Online advertising revenue has risen as digital media becomes more popular" (Circulation vs. Advertising).

This election has been marked by a media disinfromation frenzy that is intended to keep us intrigued, wondering, unsure, and glued to the tube.

All of that without much of a grasp of the reality of what matters (Media Matters).

II. The Real Law Breaker

The presstitutes generated another blanketing fog over the weekend.

A fog that was confusing both to themselves and to the general public because of the resulting cacophony of uninformed speculation that went off the rails.

The imagined legality-story they pushed never mentioned that federal law, specifically the Hatch Act, forbids federal employees from partisan politics:

"The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch, from engaging in some forms of political activity. The law was named for Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico. It was most recently amended in 2012."

(Wikipedia). The culprit FBI director is aware of the law, and perhaps therefore took some pains to avoid its penalties.

The real news issue involves violation of the Hatch Act, which carries these penalties:

An employee or individual who violates section 7323 or 7324 shall be subject to removal, reduction in grade, debarment from Federal employment for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, reprimand, or an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000.

(5 U.S. Code § 7326 - Penalties). The two sections (7323, 7324) mentioned in that quote read as follows:

(a) An employee may not engage in political activity—
    (1) while the employee is on duty;
    (2) in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official     duties by an individual employed or holding office in the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof;
    (3) while wearing a uniform or official insignia identifying the office or position of the employee; or
    (4) using any vehicle owned or leased by the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof.
(b)
    (1) An employee described in paragraph (2) of this subsection may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.
    (2) Paragraph (1) applies to an employee—
         (A) the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post; and
         (B) who is—
              (i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
              (ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.

(5 U.S. Code § 7324). And the other section is:

(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not—
     (1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;
     (2) knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person, unless such person is—
          (A) a member of the same Federal labor organization as defined under section 7103(4) of this title or a Federal employee organization which as of the date of enactment of the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 had a multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(4))); [1]
          (B) not a subordinate employee; and
          (C) the solicitation is for a contribution to the multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(4))) 1 of such Federal labor organization as defined under section 7103(4) of this title or a Federal employee organization which as of the date of the enactment of the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 had a multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(4))); 1 or
     (3) run for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office; or
     (4) knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of any person who—
          (A) has an application for any compensation, grant, contract, ruling, license, permit, or certificate pending before the employing office of such employee; or
          (B) is the subject of or a participant in an ongoing audit, investigation, or enforcement action being carried out by the employing office of such employee.
(b)
     (1) An employee of the Federal Election Commission (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may not request or receive from, or give to, an employee, a Member of Congress, or an officer of a uniformed service a political contribution.
     (2)
          (A) No employee described under subparagraph (B) (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.
          (B) The provisions of subparagraph (A) shall apply to—
               (i) an employee of—
                    (I) the Federal Election Commission or the Election Assistance Commission;
                    (II) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
                    (III) the Secret Service;
                    (IV) the Central Intelligence Agency;
                    (V) the National Security Council;
                    (VI) the National Security Agency;
                    (VII) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
                    (VIII) the Merit Systems Protection Board;
                    (IX) the Office of Special Counsel;
                    (X) the Office of Criminal Investigation of the Internal Revenue Service;
                    (XI) the Office of Investigative Programs of the United States Customs Service;
                    (XII) the Office of Law Enforcement of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms;
                    (XIII) the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; or
                    (XIV) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; or
          (ii) a person employed in a position described under section 3132(a)(4), 5372, 5372a, or 5372b of title 5, United States Code.
     (3) No employee of the Criminal Division or National Security Division of the Department of Justice (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.
     (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “active part in political management or in a political campaign” means those acts of political management or political campaigning which were prohibited for employees of the competitive service before July 19, 1940, by determinations of the Civil Service Commission under the rules prescribed by the President.
(c) An employee retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinion on political subjects and candidates.

(5 U.S. Code § 7323). FBI Director Comey is specifically forbidden:

Employees of the following agencies (or agency components), or in the following categories, are subject to more extensive restrictions on their political activities than employees in other Departments and agencies:

Administrative law judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372)
Central Intelligence Agency
Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372a)
Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
Defense Intelligence Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Election Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Security Agency
National Security Council
Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives)
United States Office of Special Counsel
Secret Service
Senior Executive Service

(career positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(4))

(Hatch Act, emphasis added). Setting an example as a lawful citizen is very important for federal and state agency heads to remember.

Simply put, the act targets partisan electioneering:

The [Hatch Act] is a federal law that bars certain governmental employees from taking part in political activities. Members of the Armed Forces are not covered by the Hatch Act, though their activities are governed by the Department of Defense (“DoD”). Prohibited activities include such things as holding public office while still employed in a covered government job, managing a politician’s campaign, or taking part in any activities that attempt to sway a person’s vote one way or another. Civil servants are prohibited from publicly taking a political side, but must remain neutral always, when in their public capacities.

(Hatch Act Definition, emphasis added). That law is not difficult to grasp is it?

III. Recent Violations By Federal Officials

The presstitutes do not seem to be aware of the existence of the law, even though it has been used relatively recently:

June 2007 – Lurita Alexis Doan, the administrator of the General Services Administration, was found to have violated the Hatch Act for her involvement in attempting to get Republican politicians elected.

May 2008 – Scott Bloch, Director of the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”), which is a government agency responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act, and protecting the rights of people who report wrongdoing, or illegal activities, within the government. The FBI raided OSC offices, as well as Bloch’s home, as part of an investigation into allegations that Bloch had violated the Hatch Act in trying to exact revenge upon whistle-blowers in his office. Bloch was accused of obstructing justice by hiring an independent company to shred computer files proving the Hatch Act violations.

September 2012 – Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Director, was accused of violating the Hatch Act when she made a political speech during a government event. Sebelius claimed that she had made a mistake due to a technical error.

July 2016 – Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary, was found by the OSC to have violated the Hatch Act while being interviewed by television journalist Katie Couric. Castro admitted to the violation, but denied that the violation was done on purpose.

(ibid, Hatch Act Definition). None of those improper acts even come close to the hoopla, wildness, and frenzy that FBI Director Comey improperly caused.

IV. Conclusion

The non-partisan dynamics of government were contemplated and designed to insure that governments are concerned with all of the people in the nation, not just a partisan portion of the nation (Nonpartisan).

This understandable behavioral requirement is not limited to government officials, members of the public must also constrain themselves in the same manner concerning partisan behavior at election time:

“We had a guy who had a shirt on that the elections coordinator or deputy elections clerk felt like was a political statement,” Bulverde Police Chief Gary Haecker told the paper. “Therefore we got called up there because this gentleman didn’t want to either change his shirt, turn it inside out, cover the insignia or whatever it was. That is a violation of the election code.”

That code prohibits electioneering within 100 feet of a polling place.

“It can mean a T-shirt, a button, a hat, you know?” Comal County’s election coordinator, Cynthia Jaqua, told KSAT. “Anything related to the voting, the party, the candidate.”

(Man Arrested At Texas Polling Place). What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Once again the presstitutes have failed to serve their purpose, which is to serve all of the citizens in the public with competent information.

The previous post in this series is here.

---

---