Tag Archives: political parties

Look Who’s Talking

Posted on by
Reply

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton chastised Republican lawmakers on Sunday for a “paralyzed” Congress, saying they’ve fueled populist anger by refusing to “do their job.”

It’s Congressional Democrats and a Democratic Party President who are blocking the spending and tax cuts that would stimulate our economy and let people get back to work.

It’s a Democratic Party President whose Executive Branch creates rule after regulation that limits what people can do with their private property and that stifles innovation and economic growth, and it’s Congressional Democrats who block efforts to pull those rules and regulations back.

It’s Congressional Democrats who deliberately prevented the House from functioning at all because they couldn’t impose their minority will on the House, denying even the people’s House the ability to act democratically.

It’s Congressional Democrats who continually attack our 1st Amendment rights—every single one of them—and our 2nd Amendment rights, forcing Congress to spend valuable time protecting Americans’ individual liberties instead of positively pursuing the people’s business.

It would be good if the Democrats actually did start doing their jobs, instead of being cynically disruptive.

It would have been good had Clinton done her job as Secretary of State, instead of foisting off on us her Russian overcharge reset, with Russia now occupying Crimea and other parts of Ukraine.  It would have been good had Clinton done her job as Secretary of State, instead of napping through her 3pm call for help from our Benghazi consulate.  It would have been good had Clinton done her job as Secretary of State, instead of ignoring security strictures and running her State email communications, including classified correspondence, from her private, unsecured, unprotected email server.

It would have been good had Clinton done something positive during her stay as Secretary of State.

Democrats Quibble

Posted on by
Reply

In the Democrats’ preemptive release of their own version of the House Benghazi panel investigation into the fiasco in our Benghazi consulate that culminated in the terrorist murders of our Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff (a preemption that itself demonstrates the Democrats’ fear of the truth), they claim that ex-Secretary of State and current Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

never personally denied any requests from diplomats for additional protection.

Never personally denied.  The quibble, apart from the separate and early release, gives the lie.  Clinton was the Secretary of State.  Her security chief didn’t do anything—approving or denying—regarding consular security without the boss’ prior permission, either specifically to a given act or generally through the rules and procedures Clinton approved.

Further to the dishonesty:

The panel’s five Democrats said after a two-year investigation that the military could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks to save the lives of four Americans killed in Libya.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  What these Democrats carefully elide is that Clinton’s State Department decision to not react to the ongoing terrorist attack was made in real-time as the attack began: Clinton had no way of knowing for how long the attack would continue or for how long our Ambassador and his protection detail and the personnel at the annex to which survivors of the initial stage of the attack retreated would hold out.  A decision to have military and other units move rather than to sit and watch might have reduced American fatalities.  Or maybe not.

The key point here is that Clinton’s denial, in advance of the attack, of added security, and her subsequent denial of real-time support while knowing she could not know whether that support would arrive in time, contributed to the success of the terrorist attack.

The panel’s five Democrats know this full well and choose quibbling and obfuscation rather than truth.

Criminal Negligence

Posted on by
Reply

Further to the matter of Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s unsecured email server and her State Department’s handling of them.

…revelations from new court-released documents in a lawsuit by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch. They show the State Department temporarily turned off security features in 2010 so that emails from then-Secretary of State Clinton’s personal server would stop going to the department’s spam folders.

That’s not just dumb (or, in the words of Colonel with whom I once worked, the dumbest thing I ever heard), it’s got to be criminally negligent.

It’s too easy—and a very routine thing to do—to fish (as opposed to phish) out of those spam folders Clinton’s emails, both those from her and those to her.  It’s too easy—and another very routine thing to do—to adjust the spam filters to pass acceptable emails.

And: it’s too easy—and yet another very routine thing to do—to block access, any access, from an unsecured server of any purpose to State’s official business network, much less its classified network.

As Bob Gourley, former Chief Technology Officer for DIA, put it,

You’re putting not just the Clinton server at risk but the entire Department of State emails at risk.  When you turn off your defensive mechanisms, and you’re connected to the Internet, you’re almost laying out the welcome mat for anyone to intrude and attack and steal your secrets.

Of course Clinton’s State Department IT staff knew this.

Of course Clinton, who was the ultimate State Department classifying authority for this sort of thing as well as for all matters related to security, knew this.

Elections have consequences.

British Labor Party, American Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

David Lammy (MP, Labour) doesn’t like that the British spoke, and he wants to overturn/disregard the referendum’s outcome.  He wants Parliament to overturn the referendum.

We can stop this madness and bring this nightmare to an end….

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has its own view of the relevance of democracy.  With their sit-in and its deliberate, avowed purpose of stopping the people’s House from conducting the business those Representatives’ constituents elected them to conduct, the Democratic Party is saying, loud and clear,

We get our way, or no democracy for you.

The same sort of attack on the fabric of democracy that the Democratic Party inflicted in Wisconsin and Indiana just a few years ago.

It seems the Left on both sides of the Atlantic have no respect for the people and even less for our democracies.

The Greater Risk

Posted on by
Reply

…isn’t losing the White House, although that’s serious enough, likely as it is to cost the nation the Senate and so the Supreme Court; it’s losing the ground up contest that Republicans have been so successful with in the last few elections.

A new generation of Bernie Sanders (Senator, I, VT and Democratic Party Presidential candidate]-inspired political candidates is committing to run for state and local office, the campaign claims, a development some analysts say could shape liberal politics for decades to come….

And

…[Bernie Sanders’] campaign said 6,700 supporters expressed interest in running; the number was nearly 11,000 counting those interested in volunteering.

Of course, it’s their right to stand for office and to push their philosophy.

Indeed, I encourage them to do so; this is a debate our nation very badly needs to have; we need to settle this question for the next generation or so.  It does, though, put a premium on our being on top of our own game throughout this necessary debate, lest the Republic be lost.