Tag Archives: political parties

Lawless Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

This time, in the Senate.  The Senate tried to consider a bill that would have, among other things, denied Federal funds for sanctuary cities—cities that openly and blatantly not only accept illegal aliens but actively interfere with Federal actions taken to deal with them.

Sanctuary cities like San Francisco, where an illegal alien was protected from Federal action and who repaid the city’s forbearance by murdering a young woman.  Sanctuary cities like Alexandria, VA, where illegal aliens connected to the M-13 drug cartel murdered two young men.  Sanctuary cities like Los Angeles whose protected illegal alien murdered a high school boy in an LA suburb.  The list goes on.

But Senate Democrats ran screaming for the hills, blocking a cloture vote on that bill: these Democrats were afraid to allow the bill to be debated on the Senate floor, in public and in front of their own constituents.

No, these Democrats want to keep those funds coming, want to reward cities that flout the law and allow illegal aliens—including the small but violent minority of them—to roam free.

Democrats vs Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrats assaulted democracy in Wisconsin and Indiana, saying by deed, “No democracy for you until we get our way.”

Now they’re taking their assault to the nation.  No democracy for us until they get their way.  And then it’ll be their version only.  Recall the Democrats’ assault on democracy as they tried to shut down the Congress of the United States because they couldn’t get their way on gun control.  They’re threatening to block our democracy more permanently unless they get their way.  When Congress reconvenes,

Democrats plan to pick up with their particular firearms attack precisely where they left off in late June with an unprecedented sit-in on the House floor.  From a memo from the Congressional Black Caucus leadership [emphasis added]:

Rep Robin Kelly (D, IL) would like CBC members to be present for Floor activities on gun violence when the House returns to session on Tuesday, July 5, 2016. The plan is to be as disruptive to (House) Speaker (Paul) Ryan (R, WI) as possible next week.

This is part and parcel with the FBI’s decision to whitewash Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, obeying his instructions from Attorney General Loretta Lynch and President Barack Obama (D).

Elections have consequences.

Integrity, DoJ, and the FBI

Posted on by
Reply

FBI Director James Comey has obeyed his orders from his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and her boss, President Barack Obama (D), and he’s recommending no charges be filed against ex-Secretary of State and Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her…mishandling…of classified material via her unsecured email server.

This after saying in his presser announcing his recommendation,

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

In other words, lesser people should be prosecuted, at least administratively, and (not or) have their clearances lifted.  But not Democrats.

John Fund had some questions about Comey’s acquiescence; below are some of them.  It’s important to note that Comey didn’t have the moral courage to stay past his statement and answer any questions, much less these.

You said that anyone in Hillary Clinton’s position would have at least faced administrative or other sanctions for their behavior.  Would you outline what is type of sanctions have been applied in the past?  Would someone like Hillary Clinton be granted a security clearance after violations of this kind?

You stated that the handling of top secret classified material by Hillary Clinton and her aides was “extremely careless.”  Lawyers say that is the definition of the “gross negligence” statute that provides for prosecution of anyone who allows classified information to be mishandled.  What is the difference between those terms in your opinion, and is there a legal difference?

You mentioned that some of the classified information was marked as classified when Mrs. Clinton handled those emails.  Is that not the definition of “gross negligence” that should trigger the statute mandating prosecution of those mishandling sensitive information.

There is a parallel investigation into Mrs. Clinton being conducted by the FBI into possible corruption involving the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.  What is the status of that investigation and do you believe that probe will be finished before Americans go to the polls to elect a president in November?

Did any of the deleted emails recovered from Mrs. Clinton’s email server bear on the investigation of the Clinton Foundation?

It appears that roughly one-in-15 of the work-related messages that Clinton sent or received on the private server have been classified at some level. A total of 22 emails were classified as top secret—the highest level of secrecy.  You said that we should expect some of that information is in the hands of others. Would you characterize how bad the damage to national security would be if that information be compromised?

There’s integrity, Democrat style.

Schedule Destruction

Posted on by
Reply

In the course of a court-ordered (because the lady was unwilling to talk otherwise) deposition before Judicial Watch pursuant to a FOIA lawsuit (because the State Department was refusing otherwise to follow the law and provide the requested information or any reason why not), Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s close aid Huma Abedin said that Clinton had destroyed—”burned”—several pages of her Secretary of State calendar’s schedule.

If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that…that certainly happened on…on more than one occasion[.]

Only copies?  That likely would be OK.  But how do we know that only copies were burned?  After all, Clinton already has said she destroyed 30,000 emails that she claims were personal—with no way anyone else can know these documents in fact were personal; Clinton did the destruction by herself, without so much as a fare-thee-well to State before she’d done it.

With an honest DoJ, this would raise questions of evidence tampering.

Hmm….

Tony Blair Misunderstands

Posted on by
Reply

Great Britain’s Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair has sensed danger from the Brits’ vote to leave the European Union.

Blair said in a Friday column in The Daily Telegraph that the future of the United Kingdom is at stake as the country faces negotiations on the terms of leaving the European Union.

Of course there’s danger—there always is when a change as large as this is embarked on.  But Great Britain didn’t get to be as great as it was and still is by being timid.  This move is a great opportunity for the nation, much more so than it is a risk, however real that risk is.

Blair also worried:

Britain is dangerously divided, with “profound dismay” felt by many of the 48 percent who wanted to remain in the EU.

He’s missing the other question, though: would Great Britain be any less divided had they voted to Remain?  Not a bit.

Look forward, not backward.