Tag Archives: political parties

Precisely Why

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State Antony Blinken finally agreed to let House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R, TX) and Committee Ranking Member Greg Meeks (D, NY) personally view—in a State Department facility—the dissent cable regarding President Joe Biden’s (D) decision to…withdraw…from Afghanistan and the State Department’s official response to the dissent.

What McCaul said afterward:

The dissenters were absolutely right about everything they said. And it was a warning to the administration about what was going to happen and what they needed to do. [The dissenters] deserve a medal.
Unfortunately, the administration didn’t heed all their warnings and we got what we got.

What Meeks said afterward:

There’s nothing really that we didn’t know. There was a dissent cable, there was a reply and action that was being done.
Hopefully that puts to rest this whole thing about having a subpoena and the president is hiding something or whatever it is. That should be put to rest.

Contra Meeks’ effort to sweep the whole fiasco under the rug, the existence of sharply differing views by the Chairman and Ranking Member regarding the contents of the dissent and the reply are precisely why the material, completely unredacted, should be given over the Foreign Affairs Committee and, equally unredacted, made public for us in the public to read.

We’ll decide for ourselves the importance of the material, whether Biden is hiding something or whatever it is, whether Biden and others involved should be held accountable for the disaster, and of what that accountability should consist.

Meeks doesn’t speak for us. Meeks doesn’t even speak for all of his constituents. And neither do Blinken or Biden.

Stop “Preparing”

Posted on by
Reply

The ongoing tussle between House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R, KY) and FBI Director Chris Wray over the latter’s refusal to satisfy a Committee subpoena to hand over an FBI form FD-1023 needs to stop being ongoing.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer on Wednesday announced that he would soon meet with FBI Director Christopher Wray to resolve a dispute between House Republicans and the bureau over its refusal to hand over a document that detailed an alleged bribery scheme involving then-Vice President Joe Biden and a foreign national.
Comer indicated he might seek a House vote hold FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress….

Comer needs to stop yapping about going to hold Wray in contempt, and have the Committee vote, and then have the House vote to hold him in contempt. Wray has already refused to turn over the document; there’s nothing to be gained with more pretty pleases, no matter how forcefully uttered.

Unfortunately, Comer seems satisfied with his first grade playground taunt of “boy, oh boy, when I get you.”

Two “Whys”

Posted on by
Reply

Carefully—cowardly—anonymous Biden administration officials have leaked to the press that

A drone attack on the Kremlin earlier this month was most likely orchestrated by Ukraine, which has conducted a series of attacks on Russian targets, US officials said.

Why is the Biden administration even talking publicly about this? Who conducted the strike would seem to be a national security matter, for us and for the nation—if there was one—that conducted the strike, especially when that nation, supposedly, is heavily supported by the US. The leak and its claimed attribution of who did it seem especially egregious in light of the nature of the attack: it was blatantly amateurish and so wholly inconsistent with the quality of operations which the Ukrainian military has otherwise executed.

 

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has cautioned Ukraine against conducting attacks inside Russia over fears that Moscow could escalate the conflict….

Why does President Joe Biden (D) insist that Russia should be a sanctuary nation, free to assault a sovereign nation with impunity and without fear of response?

Gavin Newsom’s Racism and Sexism

Posted on by
Reply

This is made manifest in the kerfuffle over who he has said he’ll appoint as a California Senator should sitting Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) retire before the end of her term in January 2025.

Newsom drew criticism for not appointing a Black woman to replace Kamala Harris when she assumed the vice presidency and has since vowed to do so should he receive another chance to appoint a senator.

Notice that. Newsom doesn’t say he would appoint Feinstein’s replacement on the basis of qualification for the position, on the basis of being able to function effectively as a representative of that person’s California constituents, on the basis of merit. No, he said he’d appoint someone on the basis of his first and most important criteria: that the person would be black and a woman.

Appointing someone to office because that person is black is blatantly racist.

Appointing someone to office because that person is a woman is naked sexism.

Newsom is looking to score a two-fer.

Opening up for Election Fraud

Posted on by
Reply

Washington’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Jay Inslee has signed into law yet another pathway to illegal voting. This new election law

allows people to register online to vote in the state by providing the last four digits of a Social Security Number and an electronic signature.

Never mind that those “last four” are broadly publicly available. Never mind that electronic signatures far too often don’t even remotely resemble a person’s actual signature: it’s done by clicking a link labeled with words to the effect of “by clicking this link, you’re certifying you are who you say you are and electronically signing,” or by presenting a signature field wherein you squiggle something with your finger or with your mouse.

Now anyone can vote in Washington, and do so multiple times; the putative voter needs only access to multiple “last fours,” and then he can “electronically” sign multiple voter forms.

What a boon for Washington citizens, especially the non-real ones.