He’ll Gladly Pay You Tuesday

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a new entry in the Progressive-Democrats’ Newspeak dictionary.  According to Congressman Ritchie Torres (D, NY), President Joe Biden’s (D) infrastructure…proposals…

are not expenditures, these are investments[.]

That distortion of the plain language of our honest dictionaries isn’t his whole story, though.

In my view, it’s short-sighted to obsess about the dollar amount because these are not expenditures, these are investments[.]

He’ll gladly pay us Tuesday for an investment in his hamburger today.

Wait—this is Tuesday. Pay up, Congressman. Or better, stop spending money you don’t have. Your credit’s no good.

Wait, wait—Tuesday never comes in the Congressman’s world.

Maybe It’s Time

Posted on by
Reply

The Arizona Senate has subpoenaed a considerable amount of documents and electronic equipment from the State’s Maricopa County to support the Senate’s audit of 2020 election results in that county. Actually, that was done some months ago, and the Senate has only recently been able to begin its audit as County officials stonewalled, obstructed, and generally interfered with the start of that audit.

Now, it seems, those County officials are outright refusing to satisfy some of the subpoenas’ requirements.

In its subpoena, the Arizona State Senate had asked for, in part, “access or control of all routers, tabulators, or combinations thereof, used in connection with the administration of the 2020 election, and the public IP of the router.”
The Monday letter from the MCAO said the county was refusing to hand over those routers or even digital copies of them, citing an alleged “security risk” associated with the hardware.

I suspect this pertains to servers more than it does routers. Routers only send data packets—small sets of 1s and 0s—hither and yon, retaining in their own systems only tables of Internet addresses and IT administrative data. The addresses, with their implied networks where they aren’t related to audit requirements, and the admin data are easily protected by auditor-trusted and -specified individuals. These do need to be inspected, though, for unauthorized communications or accesses. Servers will have the directly election-related data that those strings of packets represent when the data are transmitted.

Regardless, the subpoenas are mandatory and binding on the County officials, and they have been upheld, in no uncertain terms, by the Arizona courts.

This is just another example of Maricopa County officials disrupting and attempting to block the State’s audit of the County’s election results. This example repeats the question of what these guys are trying to hide.

Absent their obstruction, this audit would have been long completed, and the officials would have been demonstrated to have performed their duties wholly satisfactorily and the county’s part of the State’s election results shown to be entirely jake.

Or not.

Maybe it’s time for the State to send the State Police into Maricopa County to execute the remaining portions of the subpoenas by physically seizing the equipment in question and delivering them to the audit facility.

And arrest any who obstruct the seizures.

Enough of the County management’s stalling and obstruction.

The Party of Systemic Racism

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that the chairman of the Lamar County Democratic Party, Gary O’Connor, called Senator Tim Scott (R, SC) an oreo over Scott’s speech responding to President Joe Biden’s (D) speech to a sparsely populated joint Congress.

In response to the backlash to his blatantly racist and deliberately cast slur, O’Connor tendered his resignation from his position in the party.

Now we have the truth of those Progressive-Democrats:

Representatives of the Lamar County Democrats met Tuesday to consider the resignation of Gary O’Connor, the Lamar County Democratic Party chair. However, the party said in a statement that they decided not to accept the resignation after taking the “last few days to reflect upon this incident.”

O’Connor has apologized to Scott. The Lamar County branch of the Progressive-Democratic Party has its own, nominally parallel, claims regarding O’Connor’s racist slur:

Lamar County Democrats recommit ourselves to conduct our private conversations and our public social media discussions with anti-racist, pro-reconciling attitudes and language. We strongly condemn bigotry of any kind and will continue our historic efforts to work for justice and equality for all our fellow citizens.

Leave aside the fact that “anti-racist…language” includes such racist moves as attempting to force the 1619 Project into children’s school curriculum and into college and university required coursework, trying to force children to “deconstruct” their racial status and “privilege,” trying to force children and their parents explicitly to support “anti-racism” and activists like BLM, and so on.

Apologies, however sincere as O’Connor’s seems to be, at least in its construction, are nothing but empty words, though, absent sustained and observably changed behavior. Such a thing takes open, improved behavior over a considerable amount of time. Especially, it requires that behavior; simply going to ground and being silent and hidden doesn’t cut it.

Recommittals like the Lamar Progressive-Democrats’ are meaningless unless they’re accompanied by sustained, measurably improved performance. Such a thing by an organization takes changed behavior over an even longer period, and it’s best accompanied by a change in management personnel, including here those Representatives of the Lamar County Democrats.

The Lamar Progressive-Democrats’ statement, though, is especially noncredible given their decision actually to do nothing: their refusal to accept O’Connor’s resignation as their chairman. Insisting he stay on is simply their empirical (as opposed to rhetorical) demonstration that the branch, as a body, condones racism. Had that gang valued O’Connor’s contributions while decrying his racist spew, they would have accepted his resignation as chairman and reassigned him to another, lesser position within the branch.

Allen West, Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, has the right of it. He said he was

sick and tired of the duplicitous hypocrisy of the true party of racism.

And

He said he would be sending a box of Oreos to the Texas Democratic Party.

Wrong Assumptions

Posted on by
Reply

An anonymous writer for the Associated Press summarized the views of some in the operational (as opposed to the political) side of our Federal government regarding our pending withdrawal from Afghanistan.

An unclassified report released Tuesday by the Director of National Intelligence says the Taliban remain “broadly consistent in its restrictive approach to women’s rights and would roll back much of the past two decades’ progress if the group regained national power.”
It’s the latest US warning of the consequences of the Afghan withdrawal now underway, two decades after an American-led coalition toppled the Taliban. General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that there would possibly be “some really dramatic, bad possible outcomes” for Afghan forces left on their own to counter the Taliban, but also noted, “We frankly don’t know yet.” And CIA Director William Burns told Congress in April that the American ability “to collect and act on threats will diminish.”

That’s bad enough.

The really dangerous aspect of our withdrawal—for our nation and our friends and allies, as well as for Afghanis—is this from our Secretary of State:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has acknowledged that a Taliban takeover of the country is possible after the withdrawal. But he has also maintained that the group does not want to be a pariah and will have to embrace or at least tolerate the rights of women, girls, and minorities if it wants to be viewed as legitimate by the international community.

These are dangerously unfounded premises; Blinken is assuming the men [sic] of the Taliban think like we do. He’s assuming these men care about any pariah status from outsiders. He’s assuming these men care about what the international community thinks of them. He’s assuming these men are outward looking in any way.

Such blithe self-centered attitudes blind us to our enemies’ capabilities, and worse, blind us to their intentions.

The National Intelligence Council’s unclassified report can be seen here.

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Facebook’s “Review Board” has decided that Facebook should continue censoring former President Donald Trump (R). They also issued some pap about how Facebook wasn’t clear enough about why, or for how long the censoring should occur, but the bottom line is—keep on keepin’ on censoring.

This is Mark Zuckerberg continuing his censorship of those political figures of whom he disapproves. (The putative independence of Facebook’s review board from Facebook is an irrelevancy, since Facebook has a controlling role in appointing board members.)

This, also, is another example of why the big tech companies, of which Facebook is a canonical example, need to be disassembled and the separated pieces regulated as utilities or as public accommodations.