Tag Archives: politics

Coalitions, the G-7, and NATO

Posted on by
Reply

In an editorial in which The Wall Street Journal‘s editors went on at length about President Joe Biden’s (D) meeting(s) with the leaders of the other nations of the G-7, there was some discussion about the G-7’s final communique, in which the G-7 had pretty words about the need do some things about some conditions and to do them together.

The subtext of those meetings, though, was this.

The nations of the G-7 want the coalition to act together, but they emphasize the “together” part while deprecating the “act” part. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has bought into that cynical vapidity.

Further, when Biden gets to Brussels, he’ll see most of the NATO member nations celebrating the United States being back. Back to being most of those nations’ NATO treasury and blood bank while they continue to decline to commit their own money and blood for mutual defense. Here, those nations emphasize “defense” while deprecating “mutual.” Unfortunately, the Biden administration will actively celebrate that version of “back.”

Congressman Colin Allred (D, TX) Makes the Case

Posted on by
Reply

The good Congressman tried to make the case for HR1 in his Letter to the Thursday Wall Street Journal

What HR1 does is simple: it sets national standards for access to vote by mail, early voting, and voter registration so that our democracy isn’t radically different from state to state.

HR1 also nationalizes a number of other aspects of voting currently set by the individual States (as well as giving the Federal government veto authority over any moves a State might make in contradiction, but that’s an extra little fillip).

Unwittingly, though, the Progressive-Democratic Party Representative from Texas has made a critical aspect of the case against HR1.

Our 50 States do not exist merely as counties to the central government, existing solely for the convenience of enforcing laws handed down from the center. They are, instead, 50 different, enthusiastic, ongoing experiments in democracy. The good citizens of Maine have different imperatives than those of Illinois or Texas, and those citizens have different imperatives than those of California or Oregon.

And that’s a core strength of our nation.

An Old Softy

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration had set up a mechanism for helping victims of illegal alien-committed crimes, the Victim Of Immigration Crime Engagement Office.

President Joe Biden (D) has chosen to get rid of that program and replace it with a more comprehensive and inclusive victim support system.

We’ve seen Biden’s more inclusive victim support system in the crisis he created at our southern border: his Biden Cages, the appalling numbers of routinely and extensively abused unaccompanied children even before they get to Biden’s cages, the just as appalling numbers of abused and raped girls and women even before they get to our border—in both cases, treks he actively encourage while he was campaigning last year—the included drugs that come across as part of the Biden Influx.

Soft on crime, soft on the border, soft on illegal immigration. At least Biden is consistent.

The G-7 Meeting

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal asked a question last Friday regarding President Joe Biden (D) and the weekend G-7 meeting.

What would you like to see come out of the G-7 summit?

I would have liked Biden to repeat former President Donald Trump’s (R) offer of a completely tariff-free trade regime among the seven.

But he didn’t make the offer. Biden and his fellow Progressive-Democrats are all about higher taxes, not lower.

Blatant Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

Or blatant aiding and abetting. Or both. Here is the critical part of how things went down in the JBS Corporation hacker attack and JBS’…surrender…to the hackers:

After identifying the incursion early on Sunday, May 30, JBS said it alerted US authorities…. By that afternoon, the company had concluded that encrypted backups of its data were intact, said Andre Nogueira, chief executive officer of JBS USA Holdings Inc.

Then

Tuesday evening, progress getting JBS’s systems back online using its backup data made Mr Nogueira confident enough to issue a statement announcing that the majority of JBS plants would be operational on Wednesday, June 2.
The company’s consultants had continued negotiating with the hackers. Though forensic analyses by JBS and its specialists showed that no customer, supplier or employee data had been compromised, Mr Nogueira said, the cybercriminals claimed they had captured some.
JBS’s cybersecurity experts warned that the attackers may have left themselves some way to pry back in. After JBS negotiators and the hackers arrived at an $11 million sum….

Promptly getting back on the air with sound backups, JBS unharmed even if sorely inconvenienced, Nogueira continued negotiating with the hackers, and ultimately, Nogueira paid off anyway. And all, apparently, because the hackers claimed to have gained “some” data and that, according to his consultants, maybe—maybe—the hackers had left a back door for later use.

Never mind that the hackers claimed, after payment, that no, they didn’t have any stolen data. Who can trust the words of criminals? Never mind that, payment or not, the hackers’ back door remains—if it exists at all. Where’s JBS’ IT? Where’s JBS’ training—with enforced sanctions—of its employees regarding phishing and malware in general?

Then there’s this bit of cynicism:

The cost of the attack, he [Nogueira] said, would be immaterial to JBS….

Except for the part about Nogueira has made JBS an open target for further hacks, and their costs. Never mind the exposure Nogueira’s behavior has created for other businesses by demonstrating that such hacks actually work with impunity and as revenue-generators for the criminals (and political gain-generators for their State sponsors). Never mind, either, the costs this particular hack imposed on JBS’ customers and on the company’s suppliers.