Tag Archives: political parties

Yet Another Border Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

…by a Progressive-Democrat.

This one is by Congressman Raul Ruiz (D, CA), Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Asked whether Vice President Kamala Harris (D), appointed by President Joe Biden (D) to be responsible for and to lead solutions to our rapidly expanding illegal immigration crisis on our southern border, Ruiz gave a weasel-worded answer, but he said this much quite clearly:

I’m sure that someday she will [visit the border]. If you’re going to be strategic, right, she’s tasked with addressing the root causes of migration north. You don’t find the root causes at a CBP station at the border, you find the root causes by speaking to individuals who have fled. You speak to the leaders of local organizations, to the countries that they’re fleeing…industry leaders and UN human rights activists, and that’s exactly what she’s doing.

No, you don’t find root causes to anything without first understanding what it is that’s being caused.

And that requires speaking to individuals who have fled, yes, but at our border, when those individuals’ concerns, their outright fears, still are fresh in their minds, not after they’ve been settled in the interior and given words to say by the handlers on whom they’re dependent for their continued welfare.

That requires visits to our border, not to the personal safety of a CBP border station. Without visiting the border, a Progressive-Democrat will not observe the illegal aliens crossing our border individually and in groups, the children traveling alone or being dropped over a border fence to fend for themselves or being abandoned by their handlers once across the border.

The Progressive-Democrat Ruiz, Harris, Biden—any of them—can have no hope of understanding the “root causes” of our border crisis without first understanding those outcomes. Absent that understanding, they can have no idea for what they’re looking.

It’s instructive that one as awesomely brilliant as Ruiz chooses not to see that.

Patty-Cake

Posted on by
4

President Joe Biden (D) has an Executive Order out that, among other things, asks private industry pretty please to adapt to the continuously changing threat environment, ensure its products are built and operate securely, and partner with the Federal Government to foster a more secure cyberspace.

Clarion Intelligence Network Director Ryan Mauro has another idea, sort of.

Make no mistake about it, a defensive strategy towards the cyber threat is not going to work. There’s going to have to be an offensive strategy.

But he doesn’t go far enough, either.

It’s time for the US to do things like having its own Wikileaks, so that when Putin does something, guess what appears on the internet? A bunch of his own secrets, showing how corrupt he is—that will deter them.

No. That’s a mouse remonstrating with a hawk. The mouse insists the hawk’s ways are wrong. The hawk insists the mouse is lunch.

We need to make a serious response—rather, a serious collection of responses—to a cyber attack, which Mauro does correctly characterize as no difference, when you commit an attack, whether using a bomb or cyber strike.

No, our offensive response must be a sharp escalation—done faster than the attacker can respond—and across a broad spectrum. Our response must include a prompt cyber response that includes those secrets being exposed, but that also simultaneously shuts off electrical grids and penetrates and corrupts attacker national databases. Our response also longer-term penalties, even if they take some time to produce effect: immediately emplaced economic bars against government officials, oligarchs and their enterprises, and governments of the attacking nation or of the nation hosting the attackers. The response must continue: location of the equipment used to originate the cyber attack and the corruption of that equipment with malware (of which there is much on the dark net; no need to reveal our own malware capabilities).

The only real conundrum here is that our response must not be so all-out that it gives away our full capabilities before we’re in an actual war.

Nord Stream 2 and Joe Biden

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) likes to present himself as talking big. Unfortunately for the rest of us, and for our nation, he acts small. In the latest example, he said that he

lifted sanctions on the Russia-to-Germany pipeline Nord Stream 2 “because it’s almost completely finished.”

He also said, after having agreed with Russian President Vladimir Putin to lift sanctions on and stop blocking Russia’s Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline,

I’ve been opposed to Nord Stream from the beginning…they know how I feel[.]

And “they” don’t care. “They” showed how little they care when Putin allowed Russian hackers to shut down a critical part of our own fuel distribution infrastructure.

Here’s Biden again, on the same pipeline:

It’s not like I can allow Germany to do something or not….

It’s not like Biden would have been allowing Germany to do anything or not. Our government was denying Russia’s ability to increase Germany’s—a European economic powerhouse and key NATO member—dependency on Russia. Until Biden gave up.

“Almost completely finished” means not done and no natural gas flowing and no benefit—or money—flowing to Russia. “Almost finished” were the easy parts of the pipeline; the most difficult 90 miles were what was left.

No, Biden “opposed” the pipeline until it became inconvenient to him to do so.

Now, with his meek…acquiescence…Russia gains firmer hold on the economies (and so the nations) of central Europe, most especially the erstwhile strongest economy, Germany’s. And it comes promptly after Putin ran his demonstration of what would happen to our own energy infrastructure if we continued our interference with Russian extraterritorial activities.

Biden, Planned Parenthood, and Abortion

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden’s (D) fleshed out budget proposal will have an indication of his fiscal attitude toward abortion and taxpayer dollars.

It’s an important indication, too, as Melanie Newman, Senior Vice President of Communications and Culture for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, was cited in the article as noting:

removing the [Hyde] amendment from the budget “would send a clear signal from the president of the United States that our federal laws should support everyone’s ability to access comprehensive healthcare services, including safe, legal abortion.”

But what about the babies’ ability to have access to comprehensive healthcare services, including safe, legal birth, and life?

Oh, wait—babies don’t vote.

Nor do babies donate to Planned Parenthood.

Lockdowns and Employment/Jobs Recovery

Posted on by
Reply

Wall Street Journal editors had a couple of graphs that illustrated these things in their Tuesday editorial.

Those are primarily Republican/Conservative-run States at the top, and primarily Progressive-Democrat-run States at the bottom.

And this one:

Again, the worst performing States are primarily Progressive-Democrat-run; the best performing—notably at/near their pre-Wuhan Virus situation levels—are primarily Republican/Conservative-run.

The primary distinction is between States with hard and broad restrictions on movement and gathering together, up to and including sharp and extended lockdowns, and those States with markedly looser restrictions, up to and including no or very brief lockdowns of limited breadth.

It’s instructive, though, to see the former are primarily run by Progressive-Democrats, who trust no one but their personal selves, and the latter are primarily run by Republicans and Conservatives, who trust their constituents to make in-the-main sound decisions regarding their own and their neighbors’ individual welfare.