Monthly Archives: April 2019

Northern Korea Sent Us a Bill

Posted on by
Reply

Northern Korea sent us a bill two years ago for $2 million for the hospital care of Otto Warmbier while he was a kidnapping prisoner in northern Korea. The bill was part of the process of getting Warmbier when his vegetative body finally was released.

Couple things about this.

One is that Warmbier received no medical treatment worthy of the name, much less “hospital” care.  It’s necessary only to review his condition when he was, finally, returned to his family in the US.

Another is that the medical care Warmbier so desperately needed would not have been needed had northern Korea’s functionaries not tortured Warmbier for as long and as enthusiastically as they did.  That medical care would not have been needed had northern Korea’s functionaries not tortured Warmbier at all, but instead treated him humanely while they held him in their kidnapping facility.

The costs, such as they are, are solely the responsibility of northern Korea.

The proper response to this “bill” should be to treat it like the sick joke that it is and not respond to it.  Not at all.  Not even to acknowledge it.

“A Battle for the Soul of this Nation”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Hamlet’s poor relation Joe Biden, said we’re in as he opened his campaign.

We are in the battle for the soul of this nation[.] If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter….

Indeed, we are in a battle for our nation’s soul. It’s a battle between one party that actively tries to improve the situations of our nation’s citizens—whether we agree with those policies or not—and a party that has no aim for our people’s benefit, but is focused solely on anti-Trumpism.

It’s a battle between a party on the one hand that wants to get Government out of our way, to unleash our individuality and individual entrepreneurial spirit, to restore to us our individual responsibilities and freedoms, and a Party on the other hand that wants to take things away from us: our money in the form of higher taxes; our weapons, under the guise of carefully undefined “common sense”…restrictions; our freedom of speech under the cynically offered guise of suppressing “hate” speech or “terrorism fomenting;” our freedom of religion under the just as cynically offered guise of “protecting” others from discrimination (but not the ones asserting their religious tenets); our morality by growing Government to arrogate that morality to it, thereby destroying it in both places; our individualism by mandating what all of us collectively must do because Party says it benefits some of us—even where it plainly does not—and on and on.

It’s a battle between a party that wants to shrink government and Party, which wants to grow a Government run by Party members who Know Better than the rest of us.

It’s a battle between a party that wants government to work for all of us and Party, which has open contempt for millions of us and insists that us ignoramuses must simply be quiet and obey.

What will be altered—an outcome devoutly to be wished—is what this nation has become under the last 80 years of pressures and outright rule of the Democratic Party and of late the Progressive-Democratic Party: a rapidly growing regulatory state with weakened national security, and a nation damaged domestically by Party’s explosively growing national debt, its racist and sexist affirmative action programs, its gilded welfare cage, and lately its revived segregationist policy of identity politics.

There have been excursions from that trend, to be sure, but they have been only occasional and brief: one party’s successful effort to defeat the Soviet Union via its rapid defense buildup and its current, nascent restart toward rebuilding our nation’s defense establishment, together with the beginnings of a rollback of Party’s imposed regulations governing what Party would permit or require each of us to do.

This is a battle we cannot afford to lose.

Banning Violence and Extremism from Social Media

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what France and New Zealand want to do and want others to join them in doing, all in response to the terrorist murders in New Zealand.  The two intend to host a conference involving G-7 members’ IT chiefs and a separate “technology summit” aimed at getting commitments

to end the use of social media to organize and promote terrorism and extremist violence.

But whose definition of violence? Whose definition of extremism? We’re already seeing, in our nation, the Progressive-Democratic Party and their violence-oriented arms, Antifa and BLM, and their university management team associates, defining conservative speech as triggering, dangerous to mental health, violent.

This is a very slippery slope, onto which the first step may well be fatal.

Satellites, Espionage, and Malware

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that the People’s Republic of China is using our geosynchronous satellites for its own ends, both economic and national security.  It seems the NLMSM is only just catching up to that long-standing fact.

That’s not cool (each of those things), but the former also presents some opportunities (the latter only serves for hand-wringing and click-bait).

One is to upload software to block communications from PRC sources—the data packets have the data necessary for the discrimination embedded within them. Of course, it’s a routine hack to alter those packet source data or to alt-route the messaging so as to disguise the data’s origin.  But that slows down the data stream, and that, with the latency inherently involved in a communications pathway that involves such faraway nodes can destroy the usefulness of some time-sensitive data.

Another stems from the PRC’s reception of communications via our satellites.  This makes the satellites ideal platforms from which, or with which, to inject malware into the data stream headed for PRC sites.  Imagine the possibilities—especially for sleeperware, designed to be triggered at a time opportune for us.

Anybody Else

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton thinks President Donald Trump should have been—would have been—indicted on the basis of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation were he not President.

I think there’s enough there that any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted[.]

On the other hand, given the case that then-FBI Director James Comey laid out regarding Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents via her private, uncontrolled, and unprotected email server; her forwarding classified material via her unsecured emails; and her destruction of 30,000 pieces of evidence emails, she should have been indicted.

But then that was Comey, and that was Comey’s then-boss, ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s (D) secretive meeting with Clinton’s husband, ex-President Bill Clinton (D) on the latter’s airplane.

Anybody else who had engaged in those acts, or been fronted for in that way, would certainly have gone to trial.