Tag Archives: foreign policy

Lies of the Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chairman John Podesta:

What she thought would be a convenient way to communicate with family, friends and colleagues—by using one email account for both her work related and personal emails….

Which we know to be a lie, and that was confirmed in testimony by Clinton’s senior aid Cheryl Mills was compelled to provide (compelled because she didn’t have the integrity to testify voluntarily, as Clinton’s “promise” of full disclosure and transparency pressed her to do) to Judicial Watch:

Mills also testified under oath that the server existed before Clinton became secretary of state in 2009.

“President Clinton had established a server for the purposes of his own staff office, and…her email was subsequently put on that,” Mills said….

Podesta also had this on behalf of Clinton:

She believed she was following the practices of other Secretaries and senior officials.

That was another lie:

The IG report released last week found Clinton did not seek permission to use her personal account for official business as secretary of state—and would not have been approved to do so had she asked.

And

[T]he report stated that Condoleezza Rice did not use personal email for government business.  It said Colin Powell used personal email to connect with people outside the department—but he did not have a private server.

And here’s another lie:

Had Secretary Clinton known of any concerns about her email setup at the time, she would have taken steps to address them[.]

However,

The IG report also found that repeated warnings about cybersecurity were ignored and that staffers who expressed their concerns were told “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

And this [emphasis added]:

Clinton consistently has claimed nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time. While technically correct, this distinction also appears misleading.  A January 2009 non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton confirms her understanding that “classified information is marked or unmarked.”

Rather, it is the content and source that determine classification.

Elections have consequences.

Cyber Threats

Posted on by
Reply

The White House has been unable to detect a single cyber security threat more than six months after issuing a “national emergency” to deal with what the administration identified as growing and immediate danger, according to a new government report.

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton insists she has no evidence that anyone successfully penetrated her personal, private email server that she used for government business.

I wonder the basis of that claim.

A British Exit from the EU

Posted on by
Reply

There’s an aspect of so what to the question: what would actually change if the Brits vote to go their own way in a few weeks?  One set of answers involves British influence on the continent or within the EU.

[I]f the British do vote for Brexit and then have to trade with the EU, the UK would in fact find itself isolated with very little influence over regulatory standards in the single market.

Great Britain already has very little influence over those regulatory standards: look, for instance, at the hue and cry from the rest of the EU over how the British comport themselves, and regulate others, in London’s financial markets.  Also, from outside, the British would be utterly free to set their own market regulatory standards without interference or “help” from their Continental betters.

It’s the same with welfare programs and immigration generally.  Although the British do fare quite a bit better here—as part of British Prime Minister David Cameron’s pre-British exit (Prexit?) negotiations with the EU, he won concessions (not enough, some would say) regarding the amount of British welfare payments would be paid to migrant (not immigrant) workers and their stay-at-home (country) families.  But the French already are up in arms over English impertinence at not letting immigrant/refugees to flow across the channel quickly enough to suit France.

Neither of those problems would be any worse with a British exit, and the British would be in absolute control over them were they to go their own way.

The upshot looks as though there is, indeed, a what to the so what—and it favors a British exit from the EU.  Which, in addition to giving Great Britain a great deal more flexibility and complete national sovereignty, would restore the British to their historical role of power broker among hegemon wannabes on the continent.

That last isn’t all bad for the British or for the continent.

Russia Threatens

Posted on by
Reply

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday warned Romania and Poland they could find themselves in the sights of Russian rockets because they are hosting elements of a US missile shield that Moscow considers a threat to its security.

Never mind that this is a blatantly bogus beef and a naked threat.  The defensive missile shield cannot, by its very nature, be a threat to any naiotn other than one that’s planning an offensive attack.  Sort of like Russia already has done to Georgia and Ukraine at gunpoint, and to the Baltic States—each of the three—with cyber attacks.

Putin is beginning to act on his threats, too, thereby confirming the need for a missile shield.

Russia conducted a successful flight test of a developmental anti-satellite missile on Wednesday that is capable of destroying satellites in orbit, American defense officials said.

And

The launch marks another major milestone for Moscow’s efforts to develop weapons capable of destroying US navigation, communications, and intelligence satellites, a key strategic advantage.

This was a direct ascent missile firing, too.  A direct ascent shot means the missile did not have to orbit and then close with the target satellite; it could go from launch straight to satellite attack and impact.  This sort of attack takes hours off the launch to destruct time.

But, of course, this represents no threat to us.  Mm, mm.

More Fallout

Posted on by
Reply

…from President Barack Obama’s (D) timidity in the South China Sea.

Beijing has responded to the January election of Tsai and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party by intensifying pressure on Taiwan with military exercises, diplomatic moves and cross-border deportations and prosecutions.

It’s quite explicit.  Here’s Zhu Weidong, Deputy Director Institute of Taiwan Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing:

It is impossible for the mainland to get along with a party or a leader that doesn’t recognize the one-China policy or seeks to split the country.

There will be no so-called cold peace, but will definitely be a fresh confrontation.  In that case, the domestic and international situation for Taiwan will only get more and more difficult.

And Li Fei, Xiamen University’s Taiwan Research Institute Deputy Director:

If Tsai fails to recognize the ’92 consensus and one-China principle, there will be no room left for Taiwan’s diplomacy.

And this, too:

In April, a meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s steel committee ejected a [RoC] delegation after China complained.

We could help Tsai and the Republic of China by expanding trade with the RoC to reduce its dependency on the PRC and by selling the RoC arms with which to upgrade and strengthen its military.  And we could tell the PRC to stop whining; the RoC, as a vibrant, prosperous nation, is entirely welcome in organizations like the OECD.

A personal, State Dinner-type meeting between our President and President Tsai would go a long way, too.