Tag Archives: political parties

Never Let a Tragedy Go to Waste

Posted on by
Reply

Or a terrorist attack.

The debate over how to stop attacks like the terror massacre in Orlando erupted on the House floor late Monday as Democratic lawmakers loudly criticized House Speaker Paul Ryan (R, WI) and other GOP leaders for taking no action on the nation’s gun laws.

Instead of moving to enhance our nation’s and our citizens’ ability to protect ourselves collectively and individually against terrorist attacks, the Left has chosen to focus on their continued efforts to disarm us all.

More cynically, yet, the Left carefully elides the potential outcomes, the vastly reduced casualty count were at least some of the folks inside the bar armed, or were some of the passersby on the street outside the bar—and present well before the police could arrive—armed.  The one cop who happened to be on the scene could have been critically reinforced immediately, were there an armed populace present.

The disruption underscored the political divide in the wake of the attack, with many Democrats looking to tighten gun laws in response and Republicans looking to crack down on the strain of radical Islam that seemingly motivated the shooter.

Ryan also tried to hold a moment of silence out of respect for the Orlando terrorist victims, and many Democrats chose to walk out of the Chamber rather than honor those victims.  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) justified the calculated insult to those victims:

…told reporters Democrats have “had enough” of moments of silence after mass shootings when Congress does not act to tighten gun laws.

This isn’t a misplaced set of priorities by the Left.  It’s their focus.  Terrorism, Muslim or otherwise, is not a concern of theirs, and the Orlando mass shooting wasn’t an act of terrorism.  Disarming us is the Left’s priority.  Armed American citizens is where the Left’s fevered fears lie.

Elections have consequences.

So Are They All

Posted on by
1

…the Left are all honorable people.  The Honorable Left says Muslims have nothing to do with terror.  Hillary Clinton tweeted a while ago that

Muslims have “nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Of course, she’s changed her story now that the winds of politics are blowing in a different direction.

Here’s how deadly [sic] wrong she and her Left colleagues are about Muslims and terrorism:

A Muslim radical who was being investigated for terror ties stabbed a French police chief to death outside his home, then tortured the man’s wife in front of their toddler son—all while livestreaming his rampage on Facebook.

And

…[Larossi] Abballa, a French national with a prior terrorism conviction and ties to jihadists based in Pakistan, made a horrific appeal to his Facebook followers, writing, “I don’t know what I’m going to do with the boy.”

It’s true enough that the vast majority of Muslims aren’t terrorists.  But nothing to do with terrorism is a fantasy of the Left, borne of their dishonorable fear of calling a spade a spade.

Elections have consequences.

Crony Capitalism

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff [Cheryl Mills] at the State Department had a Democratic donor with virtually no relevant experience appointed to a nuclear intelligence advisory board, according to a new report that also claims the aide tried to stall journalists examining his background.

And

[Rajiv K] Fernando, a Chicago securities trader, had been a fundraiser for Democratic candidates and a financial contributor to the Clinton Foundation and even traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa.  The board he was appointed to—the International Security Advisory Board—included nuclear scientists, members of Congress and former cabinet secretaries.

The ISA “advises” State’s Arms Control and International Security sub-secretariat, a section that does highly classified work because, pursuant to its “advice”-giving, it investigates nations like Russia, Pakistan, northern Korea and their arsenals and development plans.

Fernando had, supposedly, an unpaid position, but he also had that lack of qualification, and so he had no Need to Know.  And the spot puts him in well with any Clinton administration.

This is the sort of cronyism to which we can look forward, and it’s the new Ambassadorship-as-Reward.  Elections have consequences.

A Fascism of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

A writer for the Huffington Post is defending his recent op-ed that “a violent response” is the “logical” approach to stopping presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

And PuffHo agrees, through their inaction.

What Jesse Benn wrote in his op-ed Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any:

 [T]here’s an inherent value in forestalling Trump’s normalization. Violent resistance accomplishes this.

Because unpopular speech, rude speech—especially speech unpopular with the Left, speech that’s rude to the Left—must be shut down.  At any cost.  And others’ right to decide for themselves what speech they will hear must be destroyed.  At any cost.

Elections have consequences.

Clinton’s Insecurity, More

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is rather well-known for exchanging emails with classified information in them, and for relaying others with classified information in them, via her unclassified, connected to the Internet, personal email server which she maintained in your New York digs.  She’s also well-known for her claim that nothing she handled on that server—which was all of her State Department work as well as legitimately personal emails—was “marked classified.”

I’ll skip over the fact that the emails containing classified information were classified by that content, regardless of any markings or lack of markings, and that it’s a felony to mishandle classified materials in that way or any other, regardless of intent.

Now we know, however, that she has been lying about those markings, too.

[A] 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking”—and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.

Documents are marked classified in accordance with the classification level of the information contained.  There are two types of markings that every document marked classified carries, and these markings identify the fact of classification—again, contrary to what the Left keeps bleating, the documents already are classified simply because they carry classified information; markings do not create the classification, they merely acknowledge it.

One type of classification marking is the marking at the top and bottom of every page of the document and on the document’s cover sheet, if any.  This marking indicates the highest level of classified information contained anywhere in the document (there can be parts of the document with lesser classification, even with unclassified information).

The other type of classification marking is portion marking.  Here, every paragraph is marked with the highest level of classification of the material contained within that paragraph, including paragraphs that are wholly unclassified being explicitly marked unclassified.  Portion marking is more detailed than that.  Here’s an excerpt from a January 2014 federal government training manual, Marking Classified National Security Information, which is part of the training Clinton had signed off as having taken when she acceded to her Secretary of State position:

This system requires that standard markings be applied to classified information….  Markings shall be uniformly and conspicuously applied to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information, the level of protection required, and the duration of classification.
…
A portion is ordinarily defined as a paragraph, but also includes subjects, titles, graphics, tables, charts, bullet statements, sub-paragraphs, classified signature blocks, bullets and other portions within slide presentations, and the like.

Such markings were present in, at the least, that 2012 email.

The “C”—which means it was marked classified at the confidential level—is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi’s first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.

“(C)  Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.”

Everything after that was fully redacted before it was publicly released by the State Department—a sign that the information was classified at the time and dealt with sensitive government deliberations.

Elections have consequences.

Update: Grammar, grammar, grammar.  Not always a safe space.