Contradict President and Constitution, No Appointment

Presidents correctly and rightfully expect their appointees to at a minimum, remain silent about policy differences, especially in areas where they have no  expertise. President Trump is not one to suffer fools at high levels. A recent potential appointee seemed to wish to score political points at the expense of the President.  Dean L. Winslow made a basic, rookie error. He lost. From washingtonpost.com:

At my hearing, jet-lagged and in mourning over those killed, I was asked by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) about the military discharge status of the shooter. He had been given a bad-conduct rather than dishonorable discharge and — despite episodes of domestic violence and a stint in a psychiatric hospital — was able to buy several weapons, including an AR-15-style gun. Although I stated that discharge status was not my area of responsibility, Shaheen pressed her point. I acknowledged that the Air Force dropped the ball and recommended an inspector general’s investigation focusing on systems failures that contributed to the tragedy.

Then, I blurted out what was in my heart: “I’d also like to . . . just say how insane it is that in the United States of America a civilian can go out and buy a semiautomatic weapon like an AR-15.” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) interrupted, warning this was not in my “area of responsibility or expertise.” Soon after, my confirmation was put on hold.

The unasked for, unrelated response outside of Dr. Winslow's expertise, disqualified him for the appointment. If he could not control his response in the high intensity, one of a lifetime hot seats of a Senate Committee hearing, how could he be relied on to avoid similar blunders in the future.

If his opinion, in direct opposition to the well known policy of the Commander in Chief, was "heartfelt" enough to be stated in this venue, how could anyone trust him to avoid it in the future?

No one required Dr. Winslow to support policies in defense of the Second Amendment (though his oath of office would reasonably require it). His job would have little to do with defending the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. If he wanted the job, all he had to do was keep silent about his anti-Second Amendment proclivities. He was not asked directly about them.

I recall my reaction when when the media triumphantly blared Dr. Winslow's verbal blunder to the American public.  Was President Trump allowing his appointees to be infiltrated by anti-Constitutional idiots, ignorant of the Second Amendment debate, and all too willing to be used against him?

The Trump administration answered those concerns. Dr. Winslow proved himself to be an unreliable person for the responsibility he was offered.  The Trump administration showed it could prevent further loss of credibility, once a source of problems manifested itself.

Public officials are required to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  Over the last 50 years, that oath has been laughed at, mocked, and made into a parody. The foundational concepts of Progressivism require the oath be taken with the understanding it will be violated whenever it is convenient to do so.

Patriots have railed for years over the lack of accountability for government officials who violate their oath of office with impunity. Perhaps we have started to turn the corner on that proclivity.


©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch