Connect with us

Request for the NY Commission on Judicial Conduct to Investigate Judge Wiggins for Bias in his Decision on the Challenge to the Marriage Equality Act – Part II

Published

on

This is Part II. Read Part III, or go back and read Part I.

 

Before explicating additional details indicative of bias in this part of Judge Wiggins’s Decision, a consideration of Plaintiffs’ choice of venue is in order. The Plaintiffs had options of where to file their lawsuit; they chose rural Livingston County because, for one, the Plaintiff Reverend Jason J. McGuire resides there. However, Reverend McGuire’s organization New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which is among his fellow, listed Plaintiffs, is, according to its website, located in Spencerport in Monroe County, the County Seat of which is the City of Rochester. Whereas Monroe County has in Rochester a metropolitan center, rural Livingston County has no cosmopolitan center. All things considered, in rural Livingston County it is easier than it would be in Monroe County for political gay bashers to dominate the political landscape. As Plaintiff Reverend McGuire resides and votes in Livingston County, and as he is a political lobbyist and public figure notorious for his ignorance-fueled, bullying non-acceptance of gay human beings, Judge Wiggins perhaps is aware of Plaintiff McGuire’s theocratic, anti-gay and anti-gay-rights motivations and of his political influence in Livingston County, which as of the 2010 census had a total county population of 65,393. It strains credulity to think that an Acting Supreme Court Judge in this rural county of only 65,393 people would be unaware of the theocratic political gay basher Reverend McGuire and of McGuire’s political influence in the county.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct should note that 1) Plaintiff McGuire — at least partially on his alleged basis that acceptance of homosexuality comes “from Satan” — very aggressively promotes “pray away the gay” therapeutic charlatanism, specifically disapproved of by major professional medical and psychological associations and 2) Plaintiff McGuire issues shockingly-worded political threats against those that do anything specifically to advance gay people’s civil and human rights. Consider a letter that the Plaintiffs Reverend McGuire and Reverend Motley sent June 14, 2011 on NYCF letterhead to Senate Majority Leader Dean K. Skelos. In that letter, McGuire and Motley remind Republican Skelos how infuriated they remain because, in 2002, a Republican-controlled Senate “frustrated” political gay bashers by passing the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act. They subsequently remind Skelos that in New York, extreme anti-gay right wingers have successfully mounted challenges to relatively moderate Republicans, as happened in 2008 when Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino was nominated for Governor over Republican Rick Lazio. Then, Reverends McGuire and Motley tell Senate Majority Leader Skelos “In 2012, should same-sex “marriage” pass,the pound of flesh will come from the Republican Majority.” Given that Reverends McGuire and Motley are inclined to issuing such violently-worded threats about same sex marriage on New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms letterhead, perhaps Acting Supreme Court Judge Wiggins feared that if he dismissed this case outright, he would never be nominated to the Supreme Court of Livingston County. How hard is it to suppose that Judge Wiggins might have perceived that he had more to lose by dismissing this case outright than by deciding it wrongly and including bias and political propaganda in his Decision?

The Commission on Judicial Conduct must not ignore that in their violently-phrased threat to Skelos, Plaintiffs McGuire and Motley put the word marriage in quotes – as follows — same-sex “marriage” – they wrote, in reference to marriages of same sex couples – because, they refuse to acknowledge as valid the fact that same sex married couples are married, even though those same sex couples are indeed legally married. And, the Commission must not ignore that behavior, because it is characteristic of political gay bashers in Livingston County, (and elsewhere), to whom ***Acting*** Supreme Court Judge Wiggins — (who might want to get nominated to a full term on the Livingston County Supreme Court bench) — perhaps directed certain portions of his Decision, which undeniably contains biased political propaganda.

Returning now to that portion of Judge Wiggins’s Decision dealing with the Plaintiffs’ legally baseless allegation apropos of Cuomo’s message of necessity;

As previously stated, instead of providing legal analysis as to why he concluded that Cuomo acted lawfully, Judge Wiggins chastises the Governor for his use of the message of necessity. To help further to demonstrate that Judge Wiggins wrote bias into his Decision, I shall first clarify what the law says about messages of necessity. Article III, Section 14 of The New York State Constitution describes the legal conditions under which a Governor may submit a message of necessity:

§14. No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final passage, unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinion necessitate an immediate vote thereon

In his message of necessity, Governor Cuomo wrote “The continued delay of the passage of this bill would deny over 50,000 same-sex couples in New York critical protections currently afforded to different-sex couples including hospital visitations, inheritance and pension benefits.”

In his Decision, Judge Wiggins, with bias, disparages Cuomo’s opinion in the message of necessity at length, asserting, for instance, that “Logically and clearly,” it was “disingenuous.” That is to say, Judge Wiggins improperly editorialized against Governor Cuomo’s opinion which held that the end of anti-gay discrimination should occur as promptly as possible. The Commission on Judicial Conduct must now consider, that previously it has happened, that the surviving member of a loving same-sex couple together for decades has been refused his partner’s body by a hospital because he did not — under the discriminatory law as it was written at the time — have legal standing to have the body as part of proper funeral arrangements.

While Cuomo, as per the statute, certified facts which in his opinion necessitated an immediate vote on the Marriage Equality Law, Judge Wiggins in his Decision allowed that Cuomo lawfully handled the message of necessity, but that he, Wiggins, personally very strongly and emotionally disapproves of the facts Cuomo presented, and personally very strongly and emotionally disapproves of Cuomo’s opinion that those facts necessitated an immediate vote on the Marriage Equality Act. Very significantly, where, in his Decision, Judge Wiggins cites the law pertaining to messages of necessity, he misquotes it.  There now follows an example of Judge Wiggins’s misquoting of the law. 

Here is what the law actually says: The law states that all proposed legislation must be on Legislators’ desks for three days prior to any vote, “unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinionnecessitate an immediate vote thereon.”

In misquoting the law, instead of the above, Judge Wiggins wrote “unless the Governor certifies facts which necessitate an immediate vote thereon.” That is, Judge Wiggins omitted the phrase of the law“in his or her opinion,” such that to eventual readers of his Decision, naïve of the precise wording of the statute, it could well appear that the facts necessitating an immediate vote on the proposed legislation must somehow documentably be proven to necessitate an immediate vote, instead of being ipso facto valid for a message of necessity because 1) in the Governor’s opinion, those facts necessitate an immediate vote and 2) the law says that for a message of necessity, the Governor certifies the facts which “in his or her opinion” necessitate an immediate vote.

There now follows how, in his Decision, Judge Wiggins elaborated his personal and emotional opinion that Governor Cuomo should not have used a message of necessity, even though Governor Cuomo acted entirely lawfully in doing so. The bolding is mine:

“The review of such concept altering legislation for three days after generations of existing definitions would not so damage same sex couples as to necessitate an avoidance of rules meant to ensure full review and discussion prior to any vote.”

Whereas Governor Cuomo would want to spare a gay person that had just lost their beloved life’s companion the waking nightmare of being refused their life’s companion’s body by a hospital, Judge Wiggins evidently thinks it is just tough luck for gay human beings in such a circumstance. Whereas somebody might have referred to the proposed Marriage Equality Law as, for example, “discrimination-eliminating legislation,” Judge Wiggins called it “concept altering legislation.”In that same spot, a judge concerned with conveying professional impartiality and with not exhibiting bias might simply have referred to “this legislation.”

As regards Judge Wiggins’s reference to “generations of existing definitions,” (of marriage), one could ask whether Judge Wiggins has with that phrase used the Plaintiffs’ lingo.  Equality proponents do not often, if indeed ever, say that their goal is “to change the definition of marriage,” but enemies of equality continually refer to “the definition of marriage.” Whereas Plaintiffs in their Complaint use phrases such as “the definition of marriage,” such phrases about “the definition of marriage” do not appear in Schneiderman’s Response document. By way of additional example, few if indeed any of the groups that favored passage of the Marriage Equality Law celebrated by announcing “We have redefined marriage.” And, by way of contrast,  after passage of the Marriage Equality Law, Plaintiff NYCF published to its website an article titled “New York Falls Off Moral Precipice” in which it stated that four Republican Senators voted “to redefine marriage and the family.”

In his Decision, regarding the message of necessity, Judge Wiggins additionally writes (bolding mine):

“This Court is reluctantly obliged to rule that the message of necessity submitted by the Governor was accepted by vote of the Senate, and is NOT within this Court’s province to nullify.”

That sentence does not constitute a legal analysis. That phrase manifestly is directed at the Plaintiffs and their eventual supporters, and not, for example, at Cuomo or Schneiderman. Judge Wiggins himself capitalized the word “not” in the phrase “is NOT within this Court’s province to nullify;” and, it is self-evident that the capitalized “NOT” is directed not at Attorney General Schneiderman or Governor Cuomo but rather at those that want the Marriage Equality Law declared null and void. The sentence in question appears to express Judge Wiggins’s strong personal wish that he could rule in favor of the Plaintiffs on this allegation about the message of necessity, though the law does not permit him to. That Judge Wiggins thusly appears to express a personal wish to side with the Plaintiffs, though the law would not allow any judge to do so in this question of the message of necessity, and that he appears to express a personal wish to side with the Plaintiffs in language manifestly directed at the Plaintiffs, is consistent with the hypothesis that the bias Judge Wiggins exhibits in this Decision could be calculated to increase his personal professional fortunes in Livingston County.

Judge Wiggins further writes:

“although the disregard for the statute seems evident, the Court feels constrained to not rule on the Governor’s certification of necessities.”

There, Judge Wiggins is promulgating the documentable legal untruth, the lie, that Governor Cuomo disregarded the statute. Furthermore, it is senseless, absurd and unprofessional for Judge Wiggins to write that “the Court feels constrained not to rule on the Governor’s certification of necessities,” because Judge Wiggins has no authority to rule on it, and because, ruling on the Governor’s certification of necessities was not even put before Judge Wiggins. What got put before him, rather, were the Plaintiffs’ meritless allegations regarding the message of necessity, and Schneiderman’s Motion to Dismiss. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to declare that the Governor “improperly” issued a message of necessity. But the Governor acted lawfully, so Judge Wiggins had to dismiss that allegation. Instead of analyzing why the Plaintiffs’ allegations were without merit, Judge Wiggins shoehorned into the middle of what is supposed to be a legal document a biased op-ed against Governor Cuomo’s desire to eliminate anti-gay discrimination as promptly as possible.

In view of Judge Wiggins’s emotionally editorializing in place of professional legal analysis, it is galling that previously in the Decision, he wrote “The Respondent has raised multiple issues in its motion to dismiss. Some of these issues are easily decided and others require further analysis.” I want the Commission on Judicial Conduct to consider whether Judge Wiggins was being duplicitous when he wrote that.  Any judge who — given to rule on these Plaintiffs’ bogus allegations regarding Cuomo’s message of necessity — could not “easily decide” the matter, would have to be considered incompetent. And, even though Judge Wiggins wrote that some issues raised by the Respondent “require further analysis,” Judge Wiggins, writing about whether the charge involving the message of necessity should be dismissed, in a very roundabout way admitted that it should be dismissed, while openly and emotionally wishing to side with the Plaintiffs on it and chastising the Defendants. Is that not a very definition of bias?

Judge Wiggins wrapped up his non-judicial, biased political propaganda regarding the message of necessity by writing this:

“It is ironic that much of the State’s brief spews sanctimonious verbiage on the separation of powers in the governmental branches, and clear arm-twisting by the Executive on the Legislative permeates this entire process.”

Again there, Judge Wiggins appears to be writing in a particular, non-judicial way for a particular readership opposed to marriage equality for same sex couples. The State’s brief does not “spew sanctimonious verbiage on the separation of powers in the governmental branches.” The Plaintiffs’ asked the Court to declare that the Governor improperly issued a message of necessity. They did so, in the course of asking the Court to declare the Marriage Equality Law null and void and also to declare annulled all same sex marriages entered into under it. The Defendants responded with a legally sound and well-detailed defense.  That was the Defendants’ duty, as it was Judge Wiggins’s duty to write his Decision without bias and without political propaganda. There are reasons that, in the face of the Plaintiffs’ demand that the Marriage Equality Law — and same sex marriages entered into under it — be declared null and void — Judge Wiggins should have faced the task of composing his Decision with a heightened resolve to remain professional, judicial, and unbiased.

 

 

This is Part II. Read Part III, or go back and read Part I.

New York City-​based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-​interest by-​line has appeared on Advocate​.com, PoliticusUSA​.com, The New York Blade, Queerty​.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Musk Complying With Federal Laws White House Says — Will Not Release Disclosure

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insists President Donald Trump’s Director of the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, is complying with all federal laws. The Trump administration is under growing pressure to release Musk’s financial disclosure form and any conflict of interest waiver the President may have signed, if there is one.

The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, who wrote the best-selling book, “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America,” made a rare appearance inside the White House Press Briefing Room on Wednesday to challenge Musk’s actions.

“You talked about the transparency with DOGE and Elon Musk,” Haberman reminded Leavitt. “There is a conflict of interest law in place that says that people who have personal interests can’t interact with government entities that could touch on those. Has President Trump signed a waiver for Elon Musk, does such a thing and exist, if it does, will you guys release it in the interest of transparency that he’s committed to?”

READ MORE: ‘Demolition Plan’: Dems Warn DOGE Guts Government to Empower Billionaires, Harm Americans

“I have not seen the law that you are referring to,” Leavitt was quick to respond. “What I can tell you is that Elon Musk is, I’ve confirmed before, is a special government employee. He is filing the proper financial disclosure. And he is complying with all applicable federal laws.”

“As you also heard, Elon addressed this directly yesterday in the alleged conflict of interest, and he said everything he’s doing is very public, and if you all perceive a conflict of interest, you’re welcome to bring that up.”

“And as the president said, if he feels like Elon is engaging in something that’s a conflict of interest, he will tell Elon not to do that,” she claimed. “Elon also said yesterday that before he moves forward with anything, he consults with the president of the United States. So, um, we’re very confident with the ethics and the guardrails that have been put in place here.”

On Tuesday during his Oval Office press conference, Elon Musk told reporters that there is no conflict of interest.

Musk’s SpaceX reportedly received a $38.8 million contract from NASA this week.

CNN on Tuesday reported that Musk has not filed and will not file a public financial disclosure form.

“Musk, speaking in the Oval Office, sought to underscore his belief that ‘transparency is what builds trust,’ and insisted that all of his team’s efforts were being made public on DOGE’s social media accounts and website,” CNN reported. “But he also seemed to chafe at some of the scrutiny he was receiving, likening it to a ‘daily proctology exam.'”

READ MORE: ‘Trumpflation’: Blaming Biden, Trump Slammed for Breaking ‘Day One’ Promise as Prices Jump

“Earlier in the day, a White House official said Musk would not need to file a public financial disclosure, allowing the world’s richest man to skirt public scrutiny of his potential conflicts. Musk’s various companies have billions of dollars in government contracts.”

“As an unpaid special government employee who is not a commission officer, he will file a confidential financial disclosure report per the norm,” a White House official told CNN, the news outlet reported.

“We wouldn’t let him” have a conflict of interest or a lack of transparency, President Trump assured reporters Tuesday.

But The New York Times on Tuesday reported that the White House had not responded to its request “for a copy of the waiver, a document that is required under federal law to be released. Ethics waivers are typically drafted based on conflicts identified through a financial disclosure filing, so it is possible that no waiver has been prepared yet.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

RELATED: ‘Not Legal’: Trump May Dissolve Dept. of Education in Days, Democrat Warns

Continue Reading

News

‘Demolition Plan’: Dems Warn DOGE Guts Government to Empower Billionaires, Harm Americans

Published

on

During Wednesday’s DOGE Subcommittee Hearing on Government Waste, House Democrats slammed President Donald Trump’s Director of the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, and DOGE, which they accused of being a “demolition plan” for the federal government designed to empower billionaires while harming everyday Americans, and especially those who rely on social safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare.

In a damning display, U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia detailed what he said were Musk’s plans to launch a “power grab” inside the federal government, hurt “the American social safety net” and destroy “our institutions.” The California Democrat also made a few mocking remarks about the billionaire he called “President Musk.”

“I find it ironic, of course, that our chairwoman, Congresswoman Greene, is in charge of running this committee,” Rep. Garcia said of far-right Republican U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. “Now, in the last Congress, Chairwoman Greene literally showed a dick pic in our oversight congressional hearing, so I thought I’d bring one as well.”

“Now, this, of course, we know is President Elon Musk,” Garcia joked, as a staffer put up a huge photo of the billionaire in white tie and tails, to laughter from the gallery. “He’s also the world’s richest man. He was the biggest political donor in the last election. He has billions of dollars in conflicts of interest, and we know that he is leading a power grab, also abided by and encouraged by Donald Trump and of course, the chairwoman, Congresswoman Greene.”

READ MORE: ‘Trumpflation’: Blaming Biden, Trump Slammed for Breaking ‘Day One’ Promise as Prices Jump

Garcia pointed to a large board listing several federal agencies he suggested DOGE is trying to destroy.

He called DOGE “a demolition plan that’s going to run through our government,” and said that “DOGE is trying to abolish the Department of Education. That means opportunities denied to kids. It means you’re ripping away opportunities for children with disabilities, who are dependent on this money.”

“You’re also halting medical research, which is also critical, which we have to also stop. The idea that we are going to eliminate or destroy the National Institutes of Health, the NIH, is crazy.”

“Let’s talk about the Department of Labor. We’re talking about protections for working people across this country, where people can actually complain about abuses their companies are making against them and their coworkers. Workers are now going to be in danger,” he warned.

“And let’s also talk about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Another huge issue for us. Think about the scammers and fraudsters that’ll be empowered across this country, because Elon Musk,” he alleged, “wants — essentially, these companies [to] have more power over consumers and over people across this country.”

“Look at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,” Garcia continued. “That is actually what’s being discussed partly today. Healthcare, we’re talking about being denied to millions of poor people, working-class people across this country. And now, of course, they’re onto their largest target: The U.S. Social Security Administration. We’re talking about this the destruction of the actual social safety net in this country. We know that one in five Americans collect Social Security — seniors, disabled people. This entire plan is about hurting the American social safety net and destroying our institutions.”

The California Democrat continued to attack DOGE.

“This committee wants to empower the richest person in the world to hurt people so they can take all of this money that they so-call want to save and then give it to themselves, their companies, and their billionaire friends,” he charged. “That is the attack that is happening in this committee and across this country, and it’s important that we call it out.”

“We also know, of course, that Elon Musk is sending his unqualified DOGE staff to carry out this agenda across all these agencies. And in some cases, actually teenage staffers. No accountability, no experience, and problematic records. They’re trying to rob you and they’re probably a minor.”

U.S. Rep. Greg Casar also attacked Musk and President Trump, for firing numerous Inspectors General while ignoring what he says is the $8 million per day the federal government gives to Musk and his companies.

RELATED: ‘Not Legal’: Trump May Dissolve Dept. of Education in Days, Democrat Warns

“Five Inspector Generals that were looking into Elon Musk’s companies were fired by the Trump-Musk administration,” the Democrat from Texas charged. “TheseInspector Generals who are independent, protected by law, they are the people that find the waste, fraud, and abuse and found many of the cases of waste, fraud, and abuse that have been brought up today — fired because they were looking into Elon Musk at the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board, which is supposed to protect workers from getting their unions busted by folks like Elon Musk — made functionally broken by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency that really is the Department of Government Efficiency for Elon Musk, not for you.”

“They are trying to shut down the Department of Education, the Department of Labor,” he continued. “You know what he doesn’t seem to be looking into? His own contracts.”

“Just last year, Elon Musk was promised three billion from close to 100 contracts with the federal government,” Casar alleged.

He also said that “the average person in this country who survives on Social Security, one of our seniors who’s worked their entire life,” gets $65 a day from Social Security.

“We’re not looking into Elon Musk’s eight million dollars a day. This subcommittee, chaired by Marjorie Taylor Greene and the House Republicans, is looking into your grandmother’s $65 a day.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Serious Injuries to Public Health’: Judge Scorches Trump Removal of Health Websites

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Trumpflation’: Blaming Biden, Trump Slammed for Breaking ‘Day One’ Promise as Prices Jump

Published

on

President Donald Trump is blaming his predecessor, President Joe Biden, after inflation jumped far more than expected.

“Biden inflation up!” Trump wrote on social media Wednesday, taking no responsibility for breaking his campaign promise to lower prices “on day one.”

On Wednesday the U.S. Department of Labor reported inflation jumped to levels not seen since last June, and Americans are being forced to pay far higher prices at the supermarket, especially for basic staples like eggs.

“Consumer prices roared higher in January, driving inflation up to 3%,” CNN reported, calling it “the fastest monthly pace since September 2023.” Economists had expected inflation to come in at an annual rate of 2.9%.

“Egg prices shot up 15.2% from December to January, the fastest increase that index has seen since 2015, according to the report,” CNN added. “They’re up 53% year over year.”

READ MORE: ‘Not Legal’: Trump May Dissolve Dept. of Education in Days, Democrat Warns

The jump in inflation makes it far less likely the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates, which remain high as they try to battle inflation. The Associated Press reported on Wednesday, “the cost of groceries, gasoline and rents rose, a disappointment for families and businesses struggling with higher costs and likely underscoring the Federal Reserve’s resolve to delay further interest rate cuts.”

“Grocery prices have skyrocketed,” candidate Trump said back in August on the campaign trail. Trump has bragged that he won the election on his promise to lower the cost of “groceries.”

“When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on day one,” Trump said, as multiple news outlets, including The New York Post and CNN, have reported.

After the election, Trump acknowledged his pledge to reduce the price of groceries.

“I won on groceries,” Trump told NBC News’ Kristen Welker in December.“Very simple word, groceries. Like almost — you know, who uses the word? I started using the word — the groceries. When you buy apples, when you buy bacon, when you buy eggs, they would double and triple the price over a short period of time, and I won an election based on that. We’re going to bring those prices way down.”

But Trump appears to have done little to even try to bring down prices, including the cost of food.

“Now, maybe Americans did send Trump back to the White House to lower prices,” MSNBC‘s Jen Psaki wrote late last month, “but during his first week in office — a period of time when presidents typically use their power to make clear what their priorities are — he focused on anything but.

The one step he did appear to take to lower prices was to sign an executive order telling agencies in the executive branch to “take actions that lower prices.”

READ MORE: ‘Serious Injuries to Public Health’: Judge Scorches Trump Removal of Health Websites

“President Trump, who while campaigning vowed to end the ‘inflation nightmare,'” CBS News reported last month, on Inauguration Day “signaled his focus on the high cost of living in the U.S. by signing an executive order that requires ‘all executive departments and agencies to deliver emergency price relief’ to Americans.”

“It is critical to restore purchasing power to the American family and improve our quality of life,” the executive order stated.

“To accomplish that, Mr. Trump is ordering the departments and agencies that fall under the executive branch, including the departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Labor, and Energy, to take actions that lower prices for everything from housing and health costs to food and fuel,” CBS added. It is unclear what steps they were supposed to take, or if any did.

Meanwhile, consumers appear to be growing angry, and Wednesday’s inflation news — coupled with Trump’s imposition of a new tariff on all aluminum and steel coming into the United States — is not making it easier for average Americans.

On social media, critics were quick to blame and blast the President.

“Meat prices up 0.6 percent in January, egg prices up 15.2 percent. Too bad Trump is so busy doing corrupt deals with Musk and planning to take over Greenland and Gaza that he can’t pay attention to food prices,” remarked Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Former Biden White House Senior Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates posted video of Trump’s interview with NBC’s Welker.

“The thing is,” Democratic strategist and Kamala Harris alum Mike Nellis wrote, “Trump didn’t just promise to cool inflation—he said prices would go down. And they aren’t. His tariff threats are already driving prices up everywhere, from groceries to housing, cars, and appliances.”

“Trump took office and inflation immediately went UP. But instead of fixing the economy, he spent his time banning DEI, renaming water, going to the Super Bowl and trying to put hotels on the Gaza strip,” observed frequent commentator Alex Cole, who has nearly 275,000 followers on X.

“They’re calling it TRUMPFLATION. Beautiful word, maybe the best word. The most luxurious inflation—nobody does inflation better than me!” Cole also wrote, mocking Trump and his speaking style.

“Wow,” remarked Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett. “Inflation in the US rose 3% in January, higher than experts predicted for Trump’s first month report.”

After noting increases in the cost of groceries, energy, and eggs, he snarked, “Renaming the Gulf of America should help…”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: General Slams Pentagon’s ‘Racist’ Decision to Drop Key Black Engineers Recruitment Event

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.