Category Archives: morality

Democrats Quibble

Posted on by
Reply

In the Democrats’ preemptive release of their own version of the House Benghazi panel investigation into the fiasco in our Benghazi consulate that culminated in the terrorist murders of our Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff (a preemption that itself demonstrates the Democrats’ fear of the truth), they claim that ex-Secretary of State and current Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

never personally denied any requests from diplomats for additional protection.

Never personally denied.  The quibble, apart from the separate and early release, gives the lie.  Clinton was the Secretary of State.  Her security chief didn’t do anything—approving or denying—regarding consular security without the boss’ prior permission, either specifically to a given act or generally through the rules and procedures Clinton approved.

Further to the dishonesty:

The panel’s five Democrats said after a two-year investigation that the military could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks to save the lives of four Americans killed in Libya.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  What these Democrats carefully elide is that Clinton’s State Department decision to not react to the ongoing terrorist attack was made in real-time as the attack began: Clinton had no way of knowing for how long the attack would continue or for how long our Ambassador and his protection detail and the personnel at the annex to which survivors of the initial stage of the attack retreated would hold out.  A decision to have military and other units move rather than to sit and watch might have reduced American fatalities.  Or maybe not.

The key point here is that Clinton’s denial, in advance of the attack, of added security, and her subsequent denial of real-time support while knowing she could not know whether that support would arrive in time, contributed to the success of the terrorist attack.

The panel’s five Democrats know this full well and choose quibbling and obfuscation rather than truth.

The Greater Risk

Posted on by
Reply

…isn’t losing the White House, although that’s serious enough, likely as it is to cost the nation the Senate and so the Supreme Court; it’s losing the ground up contest that Republicans have been so successful with in the last few elections.

A new generation of Bernie Sanders (Senator, I, VT and Democratic Party Presidential candidate]-inspired political candidates is committing to run for state and local office, the campaign claims, a development some analysts say could shape liberal politics for decades to come….

And

…[Bernie Sanders’] campaign said 6,700 supporters expressed interest in running; the number was nearly 11,000 counting those interested in volunteering.

Of course, it’s their right to stand for office and to push their philosophy.

Indeed, I encourage them to do so; this is a debate our nation very badly needs to have; we need to settle this question for the next generation or so.  It does, though, put a premium on our being on top of our own game throughout this necessary debate, lest the Republic be lost.

Veterans Administration Mendacity

Posted on by
1

It just keeps on keepin’ on.

Officials at the Michael E DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston and its associated clinics altered records to make it appear that hundreds of appointments canceled by staff were really called off by patients, according to the VA’s Office of Inspector General.  The federal audit determined the changes were made to hide unacceptable wait times as VA hospitals around the country were under fire for neglecting patients.

This was for the 12 months ending June of last year, but it’s still after widespread corruption at VA facilities across the nation had been exposed.  No one in VA management, apparently, cares a whit about the veterans in their supposed care.

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

Tragedy Equals Excuse to Inflict Gun Controls

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the focus and modus operandi of the Democrats.

Congressional Democrats are renewing their push for gun control measures in the wake of the Orlando terror massacre, arguing the best way to prevent suspected terrorists from carrying out acts of violence is to legally limit their access to firearms.

They’re right this far—certainly such limits would be a large help.  The problem is how to do it without disarming American citizens.  And that leads to the real problem: Democrats don’t care about American citizens and our right—our obligation—to defend ourselves and each other.  Democrats just want us disarmed.

Here’s an example of Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D, NY) disingenuousness:

If the FBI believes there is a reasonable chance someone is going to use a gun in a terrorist attack, it should be able to make that determination and block the sale.  If it had that belief about the shooter in Orlando, it should have had the authority to act. But it couldn’t, so we will never know what could have been.

Never mind that if the victims in the Orlando bar or passersby on the street outside had been allowed to be armed, the casualty list would have been far smaller.  No, Schumer’s…foolishness…is here: he carefully elided any definition of “reasonable.”  He carefully omitted to define the parameters of “that belief.”  We’re just supposed to trust his Progressive government.  We’re just supposed to trust a DoJ that strenuously objects to its lawyers being disciplined for lying in open court.  We’re supposed to trust an FBI that demands a backdoor into private citizens’ private communications encryption algorithms and that studiously couldn’t find any criminal wrong-doing in the IRS’ targeting groups of Americans in disfavor with the Progressive government.  Sure.

It doesn’t get any more cynical than that.  Elections have consequences.

Democrats, Gun Control, and Cynical Uses of Tragedy

Posted on by
Reply

In Ohio on Tuesday, former Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat running for the Senate, called on Republican Senator Rob Portman to reverse his position on the watch list legislation from Ms Feinstein [Democratic Senator from California].

“The constant has been that these crimes are committed with guns—and that our leaders in Washington like Senator Portman are not taking simple, common sense steps to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would do us harm,” Mr Strickland wrote in a Medium post.

This is disingenuous on its face.  The constant is that these crimes were committed in gun-free zones, where both the victims and others present were completely unarmed and had no way to protect themselves—which the killers knew.

Strickland knows this full well, but in the words (without too much deviation from the original) of an earlier Obama advisor, Strickland will never let a tragedy go to waste.