Category Archives: ethics

British Labor Party, American Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

David Lammy (MP, Labour) doesn’t like that the British spoke, and he wants to overturn/disregard the referendum’s outcome.  He wants Parliament to overturn the referendum.

We can stop this madness and bring this nightmare to an end….

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has its own view of the relevance of democracy.  With their sit-in and its deliberate, avowed purpose of stopping the people’s House from conducting the business those Representatives’ constituents elected them to conduct, the Democratic Party is saying, loud and clear,

We get our way, or no democracy for you.

The same sort of attack on the fabric of democracy that the Democratic Party inflicted in Wisconsin and Indiana just a few years ago.

It seems the Left on both sides of the Atlantic have no respect for the people and even less for our democracies.

State Department Insecurity

Posted on by
Reply

The AP headline reads State Department was forced to disable security features to receive messages from Clinton email server.

[E]mails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. They were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton’s private server.

These emails, obtained Judicial Watch pursuant to their FOIA request and enforced by court order because State kept trying to ignore that law’s requirements, occurred in 2010.  This also gives the lie to State’s claims that had those worthies known of Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private and unsecured email server, on which she was conducting government and classified government business, they would have denied her permission to use it.  State knew.

In fact, Ken LaVolpe, Deputy Director for Security, Technical, and User Services Division in State’s Office of Information Resource Management sent this about disabling much of State’s own security software in a December 2010 email to his minions:

This should trump all other activities[.]

Tom Lawrence, Branch Chief for Technical and Security Teams in the OIRM and a subordinate of LaVolpe’s added

We view this [turning of security features] as a Band-Aid and fear it’s not 100 percent fully effective.

The AP’s headline gives the game away: State was not at all forced to disable any of its security features to troubleshoot problems with Clinton’s unprotected email server.  The Band-Aid was not at all necessary.  State could simply—and should have—cut all connections between the government’s classified networks and Clinton’s unprotected server or better, shut her server down altogether.  But this is the Obama administration’s and Clinton’s attitude toward national security and personal privilege.

Elections have consequences.

Democrat Crocodile Tears and Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R, TX) confronted Democrats during their gun control sit-in [Wednesday] night, shouting instead about the threat of radical Islam.

“Radical Islam killed these people!” he yelled during a speech by [Congressman (D, CA) Brad Sherman…referring to the Orlando terror attack.

A…Democrat…participating in the temper tantrum sit-in shouted back Don’t let terrorists have a gun! which only shows the disingenuousness of the House Democrats, if not their outright dishonesty.  That response is only a cynically offered straw man, and the Democrats should be encouraged to keep their dollies to themselves.

No one is arguing for letting terrorists—Islamic or otherwise—have guns.  The question, as Democrats know full well, is confronting and destroying terrorists like those that inflicted Orlando, San Bernardino, and on and on.  The first step in this is recognizing terrorism when it occurs and not pretending these are gun crimes so excuses for disarming Americans can be manufactured.  The second step in recognizing this is recognizing who the terrorists are and not pretending they’re isolated gun-toting criminals.  The third step in this is protecting the rights of honest Americans’ ability to defend themselves.

But as Gohmert put in a subsequent interview with Fox and Friends [emphasis added]

They were violating just a whole myriad of rules, and it didn’t matter at all.

Indeed, nor rule nor law matters to Democrats when they are inconvenient to Democrats out to make political points for personal political gain.

Keep it in mind this fall.

Dangers of a Progressive Senate

Posted on by
Reply

Last Monday the Senate voted down four gun control measures, the least offensive of which was Senator John Cornyn’s (R, TX) proposal to let DoJ delay a gun purchase by someone DoJ suspected but that also would require Justice to show probable cause in court within 72 hours in order to permanently block the purchase.

The Democrats’ response was as predictable as it was disingenuous.  Here’s Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY), for instance.

It’s hard to believe, but still true, that our Republican colleagues voted to allow suspected terrorists to buy guns.  We will keep pushing until they see the light.

It’s hard to believe, but astoundingly still true, that Democrats continue to insist on depriving Americans of our rights whenever those rights become inconvenient to Democrat agenda goals.  Suspected terrorists.  Never mind conviction.  Never mind even probable cause, which isn’t anything more than a showing to a judge that a case that might be brought has a legitimate chance of success in court, in front of a jury.  Due process?  Democrats don’t need no stinking due process.

72 hours is too short?  The DoJ already has an extensive file on the suspected individual; that’s why they suspect him.  The long pole in this tent is the drive over to the local courthouse.

We must keep resisting because Democrats disparage American rights and refuse to see the light.

Elections have consequences.

Hillary Clinton, Homosexuals, and Money Collections

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Party Presidential Candidate Hillary Clintons claims she’s on the side of gays, transsexuals, and others living alternative life styles.  She claims she’s against discrimination against these folks based on their lifestyle.  This is where a significant fraction of her foundation’s money comes from.

  • Algeria: ($250,000-$500,000) Algerian law states: “Anyone guilty of a homosexual act is punishable with imprisonment.”
  • Brunei: ($1 million-$5 million) Brunei’s penal code states: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years.”
  • Jamaica: ($50,000-$100,000) Gay men caught having sex face up to 10 years in prison.
  • Kuwait: ($5 million-$10 million) Kuwaiti law states: “Consensual intercourse between men of full age (from the age of 21) shall be punishable with a term of imprisonment of up to seven years.”
  • Oman: ($1 million-$5 million) Law states: “Anyone who commits erotic acts with a person of the same sex shall be sentenced to imprisonment from six months to three years.”
  • Qatar: ($1 million-$5 million) Sentences for acts of homosexuality range from one to seven years in prison.
  • Saudi Arabia: ($10 million-$25 million) Islamic law in Saudi Arabia enforces penalties for homosexual sex, ranging from public flogging to death. For a non-Muslim who commits sodomy with a Muslim, the penalty is death by stoning.
  • United Arab Emirates: ($1 million-$5 million) Emirati law states: “All sexual acts outside of heterosexual marriage are banned in the United Arab Emirates.”

Within the reporting precision levied on the Clinton Foundation, that works out to $19,300,000 to $55,600,000 from this subset of donors.  Even if the true value works out be on the low side of this range, that’s a lot of money for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Notice two other things about that list.  One is the penalty for being gay or for engaging in homosexual activity that these donors levy against their own citizens.

The other thing is that these all are foreign nations, and all of those donations are serious money compared to the donor nation’s economic capacity.  These nations plainly are buying influence with the candidate whom they anticipate being our next President.

Interestingly, gay rights groups think her hypocrisy is OK.  They’re carefully silent on the matter.  In the end, though, Clinton is the one running for President, not anyone from those groups pretending to favor gay rights.

Can our nation afford an additional four years of Democrat hypocrisy?