Category Archives: ethics

Security Clearances for Retired Officials

Posted on by
Reply

The Hatch Act is a Federal law that bars active Federal employees from acting in politically partisan fashion from the pulpit of their official positions. President Joe Biden’s (D) Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is frequently cited for violating it.

Stewart Baker, very late of the National Security Agency’s General Counsel, and Michael Ellis, ex-National Security Council Senior Director for Intelligence Programs, want to extend the Hatch Act (presumably with sterner consequences for violation) to retired Federal intelligence community employees.

As part of an effort to depoliticize the intelligence community, lawmakers should extend the Hatch Act’s restrictions to senior intelligence officials who continue to hold security clearances after they’ve left government.

Such an extension of the Hatch Act would be a good step, but it falls far short.

All persons—not just from intel—who leave government employ, or the employment of government suppliers of any sort, whether they leave through retirement or in order to “seek other opportunities,” no longer have the Need to Know that is a Critical Criterion for having a clearance. These folks should have their clearances revoked as of COB of their last day on the job.

[W]hen senior officials enter the private sector, they routinely retain security clearances as a perk….

It’s especially the case that matters pertaining to national security—security clearances, for instance—are far too important to be considered mere perks.

Free Speech Progressive-Democrat Style

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its subcommittees—Congressmen Frank Pallone (D, NJ), Jan Schakowsky (D, IL), Doris Matsui (D, CA), and Kathy Castor (D, FL)—are unhappy with the new free speech position of Sundar Pichai’s Google-owned YouTube. They categorically reject YouTube‘s statement that

open debate on political ideas, “even those that are controversial or based on disproven assumptions, is core to a functioning democratic society—especially in the midst of election season.”

They’re perfectly fine, though, with Pichai’s YouTube censoring the speech of President Joe Biden’s (D) presidential primary campaign opponent, Robert F Kennedy, Jr, and leaving Biden an unanswered and unanswerable field for his own speech.

The Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, it seems, want to be the sole arbiters of what speech is legitimate, and what speech must be banned. These Leftist politicians think we ordinary Americans are just too grindingly stupid to understand what we hear and how to evaluate it, and so we must not be allowed the choice. We must be led by these Leftist politicians.

This is the naked censorship toward which we can look if the Progressive-Democratic Party wins in 2024.

It’s What You Ask

Posted on by
Reply

Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton ran last Tuesday’s mid-day-ish presser, and she was asked about polling indicating that President Joe Biden (D) routinely gets low approval ratings regarding his handling of our economy and how a then-upcoming speech would impact those ratings. Dalton replied with this:

Well, what I would say is that the president’s economic policies are incredibly popular. When you ask people what they think about investing in our roads, bridges, and airports, what you—when you ask people what they think about educating and empowering workers, when you ask people about how they feel about reshoring, manufacturing jobs, and investing in America, those things are incredibly popular.

Well, of course they are. What American isn’t enthusiastically in favor of motherhood and apple pie? What us Americans aren’t happy about is Biden’s actual performance in doing anything toward achieving those starry-eyed goals. The President’s men carefully do not ask about Biden’s execution; they ask only about those popular intentions, and then they claim that because everyone loves their mother, everything is hunky dory.

This is the cynicism of the Biden White House.

Plausible Deniability?

Posted on by
Reply

Whistleblowers are telling Congress that Delaware US Attorney David Weiss was actively blocked from pursuing his investigation of Hunter Biden’s tax evasion and influence peddling machinations, including being denied permission to pursue the IRS’ tax concerns and being denied permission to bring serious (or any) charges against Hunter Biden in other jurisdictions than Delaware. These claims directly contradict Attorney General Merrick Garland’s prior sworn Congressional testimony that Weiss would have a free and unrestricted hand in his investigations.

Matthew Whitaker, Acting Attorney General under former-President Donald Trump, suggests that Garland might actually have had no knowledge of the obstruction coming from his office:

I also know how the Department of Justice works and Merrick Garland is being kept in the dark by a lot of this.
He’s not communicating with these US attorneys in Los Angeles and the District of Columbia who are doing his dirty work.

And

The Deputy Attorney General, who has day-to-day oversight of those offices, certainly is trying to keep things out of Garland’s office. And not only would I bring those US attorneys in front of Congress after they bring the six witnesses, I would also bring the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the tax division who would have had to approved or be involved in these cases.

Whitaker is being generous. These deputies trying to set up a case of plausible deniability for Garland. They’re failing at that.

Garland is an active participant in this obstruction by his deputies, if only by his continued allowing the obstruction to occur. Garland also assuredly knows of the obstruction at least since the publicity of the whistleblowers’ claims has become so widespread, and he’s still done nothing about it.

There is no plausible deniability here; Garland has constructive knowledge of the obstruction, and he has had all along: even if he doesn’t watch TV or read print news, these deputies work directly for him, Of course he knows what they’re doing, and he knows it in real time.

Merrick Garland must go. But House time and resources shouldn’t be wasted on impeachment when there aren’t the votes in the Senate for a serious trial, much less legitimate chance for a conviction. Instead, Congress and Congressmen must effectively impeach this person by widely and loudly publishing his many peccadilloes—most blatantly, for instance, investigating mothers protesting at school board meetings as domestic terrorists and allowing his FBI to “investigate” traditional Catholics as “right wingers”—and by deleting from the appropriate appropriations bill all funding for the office of Attorney General as long as he’s the AG.

Biden’s Pick to Run the CDC

Posted on by
Reply

With the current CDC honcho leaving the position at the end of the week, President Joe Biden (D) has picked Mandy Cohen, ex-North Carolina Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, to run the agency. This is the woman who, while in the NC government,

  • acceded to Anthony Fauci’s words and directions unquestioningly throughout the Wuhan Virus Situation
  • idolized Fauci with a mask featuring his image
  • imposed harsh restrictions that disrupted everyday life with no medical—or any other—benefit
  • bragged about enforcing mass shutdowns

Nominees to the CDC Directorship aren’t subject to Senate Advice and Consent, so Biden can just appoint her.

However.

The Congress can have an impact on her appointment: the House can decline, through the appropriate appropriations bill, to fund the position of CDC Director and the Immediate Office of the Director, with the latter’s 10 Offices and Chief of Staff, until a suitable Director is appointed. The House can decline to fund the CDC as a whole. The Senate can pass the House’s bill and send the relevant appropriations bill to the President.

All that would take is the political will of the Republican majority in the House along with unified Senate Republicans in conjunction with the House declining to pass any sort of budget item via reconciliation.