Category Archives: Privacy

Inadvertent Tapping and Leaks

Posted on by
Reply

As House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R, CA) revealed the other day enroute to the White House, intelligence community personnel, in the course of surveilling the communications and other activities of foreign nationals (vis., Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak), also surveilled incidentally members of then-President-Elect Donald Trump’s campaign and transition teams, and perhaps Trump himself.  Wire tapping, indeed, if loosely and metaphorically.

Of larger import, though, is this, also from Nunes.

…the intelligence “ended up in reporting channels and was widely disseminated.”

It was previously reported that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was “unmasked” in this way; however, Nunes said “additional names” were unmasked as well.

Why was this classified material leaked to the press, and who leaked it?

Of nearly as large importance, too, is this: why is the NLMSM focusing on the admittedly unusual procedure of briefing the press, the President, and then the Intelligence Committee, in that order, instead of focusing on this cynical leak of classified information?

The Party of No Refugees

Posted on by
Reply

…doesn’t turn out to be Republicans, or even President Donald Trump.

Recall the Vietnam War, and our collapse in it, including the abandonment of South Vietnam by the Democrats then controlling the Congress when North Vietnam began its final invasion and that Democratic Congress refused to allow the US to try to rescue the South.

Recall the vasty numbers of refugees trying to escape the North’s takeover and to come to the US.

The Democrats said, “No!”

…a chorus of big name Democrats…refused to accept any Vietnamese refugees when millions were trying to escape South Vietnam as it fell to the communists.

They even opposed orphans.

These Democrats included

California’s then and now Governor Jerry Brown
Delaware’s Democratic Senator and lately Vice President Joe Biden
former presidential “peace candidate” George McGovern
New York Democratic Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman

Brown even went so far as to try to prevent refugee-laden aircraft from landing at the Federal government’s Air Force Base, Travis.  The Democrats’ excuse, epitomized by Brown?

We can’t be looking 5,000 miles away and at the same time neglecting people who live here.

And

They said they had too many Hispanics, too many people on welfare, they didn’t want these people.

And this:

McGovern said he thought 90% of the Vietnamese arrivals “would be better off going back to their own land,” according to the Library of Congress.

Three of those are still around, and two of them remain active in Progressive-Democratic Party politics.

Refugees, to this Party, to the individual men and women of this Party, are not human beings in desperate straits.  Not at all.  Refugees are merely tools for scoring political points for personal political gain.

Oh, and let’s not forget that Progressive-Democratic Party heroic icon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who locked up hundreds of thousands of Americans who were already here just because they happened to have Japanese, Italian, or German heritage.

Is It 20 January Yet?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s always someone else’s fault with these Democrats.

At a final press conference in Washington, DC Thursday….

Kerry disagreed with the narrative that Obama failed to enforce the red line, however, saying the president did intend to act—but was steered off course after the British Parliament narrowly voted against bombing Syria in August 2013.

The motorboat skipper said this:

The president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, did decide to use force. And he announced his decision publicly and said we’re going to act, we’re going to do what we need to do to respond to this blatant violation of international law and of warnings and of the red line he had chosen[.]

Now, we were marching towards that time when, lo and behold…before the Friday decision, Prime Minister David Cameron went to Parliament…and he sought a vote of approval for him to join in the action that we were going to engage in. And guess what? The Parliament voted no. They shot him down.

They shot him down.  !?  It’s the Brits’ fault?  No, not a bit of it.  President-On-The-Way-Out Barack Obama (D) and his motorboat pilot were too timid to act on their own.  Obama and Kerry were so used to popping off that they never thought they’d actually be expected to honor their commitment, and so when al Assad called their bluff, they cut and ran for their desk bottoms.  (Would it have helped if James Taylor had sung, in the Rose Garden, about having a friend?)

Say, though, arguendo, that the Parliament vote was somehow legitimately influential in getting Obama to walk away from his proudly announced red line.  The outcome remains: Obama failed to enforce the red line.  Full stop.

Nile Gardiner, Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Director, had this:

[Kerry’s remarks are] a reflection of a broader disdain for Britain that runs through the Obama presidency[.]

No, it’s much worse and much broader than that.  How despicable can one administration be?

Slow-Motion Surrender

Posted on by
Reply

Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian industrialist and philanthropist, seems to want one.  Here’s his suggestion in a Wall Street Journal op-ed with the subheadline Crimea should not get in the way of a deal that ends the war. The lives that will be saved are worth it.  In particular, Pinchuk recommends the following for Ukraine to agree:

  • Ukraine should consider temporarily eliminating European Union membership from our stated goals for the near future. We can build a European country, be a privileged partner, and later discuss joining.
  • While we maintain our position that Crimea is part of Ukraine and must be returned, Crimea must not get in the way of a deal that ends the war in the east on an equitable basis. It will take Ukraine 15 to 20 years to generate enough economic growth and stabilize our infrastructure, social safety net and financial system. Everyone from Crimea will then want to live in this future Ukraine—just as East Germans wanted to become part of West Germany.
  • Conflict in the east was initiated from abroad and is not a genuine autonomy movement or civil war. There will not be conditions for fair elections until Ukraine has full control over its territory. But we may have to overlook this truth and accept local elections. Such compromises may mean letting down Ukrainians from the east who have suffered enormously. But if this is what it takes to demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to peaceful reunification, then we may have to make this compromise to save thousands of lives.
    We must focus on helping those who had to leave their hometowns, and cannot return to live under repressive and unsafe conditions, by offering them all possible support to rebuild their lives in a new reality.
  • Finally, let’s accept that Ukraine will not join NATO in the near- or midterm. The offer is not on the table, and if it were, it could lead to an international crisis of unprecedented scope. For now, we should pursue an alternative security arrangement and accept neutrality as our near-term vision for the future.

No.  This is nothing but slow-motion surrender.

And give up Crimea, even for “only” those 15-20 years—a generation—as the price of peace?  Neville Chamberlain tried that, and got Anschluss.  That’s what Russia is doing today with its partition of Crimea and its occupation of two oblasts and parts of a third in eastern Ukraine.

Crimea should not get in the way of a deal that ends the war. The lives that will be saved are worth it.

No, surrendering seized territory, whether Crimea or those other oblasts, just rewards the invasion and occupation, and it encourages further such invasions and occupations—at the cost not just of sovereignty of the victim nations but of far more lives, as well.

Federal Green Expenditures

Posted on by
Reply

Watts Up With That has some ideas for budget cutting in the next administration.  Or, actually, these ideas come from Salon (!) via WUWT (never mind that cutting isn’t what Salon meant).

  • Energy Department

2017 climate-related budget: $8.5 billion

  • Interior Department

2017 climate-related budget: $1.1 billion

  • State Department

2017 climate-related budget: $984 million

  • NASA

2017 climate-related budget: $1.9 billion

  • Environmental Protection Agency

2017 climate-related budget: $1.1 billion

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

2017 climate-related research and development: $190 million

That works out to $13.8 billion of “useless waste.”  Yes, indeedy.

While we’re about it, let’s cut the “green” subsidies, too.  Every single one of them.  The fossil fuel (coal, oil, and gas) enterprises don’t need the $3-$5 billion (depending on who gets asked) in subsidies they get, either.  That’s yet more budget cutting.19+, although fossil fuels get much less than the “green” money being tossed down rat holes.