I was in caregiver mode today so this is the first time I’ve gotten near my computer. Many thanks to all the friends who sent me these fabulous posters.
I am always genuinely honored when my fellow Council members think I wrote something decent for a change. My thanks to all of them — and be sure to read all the other posts, both Council and non-Council, because I guarantee that they are interesting and will feed your mind:
The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.
“This movement is turning our campuses into hostile environments for free expression and due process. And so far, university officials, political leaders, and the White House are siding with the mob.” – Christina Hoff Summers
“Why can’t a woman/Be more like a man? – ‘Hymn To Him’ from My Fair Lady
“Feminists at Occidental College created an online form to anonymously report rape/sexual assault,” a user wrote in a Tuesday post on Reddit’s Men’s Rights group. “You just fill out a form and the person is called into the office on a rape charge. The ‘victim’ never has to prove anything or reveal their identity.” – Quoted In Los Angeles Times, December 20, 2013.
This week’s winning essay, Bookworm Room’s The coming perfect storm on American college campuses — one that feminists and other professional victims will hate is pretty much about what the title implies it is…an examination of the current anti-male politically correct malaise with a surprise ending! Here’s a slice:
I had so much fun the last time I deconstructed the analytically and factually foolish posters I found on the Facebook pages of my many, many Leftist friends, that I thought I’d do it again. As before, my commentary is below each poster:
I’ll Yid with Lid the floor on this one. He describes how he tried to feel true compassion for Carter when the former President announced his cancer. Unfortunately, Carter sank to his usual depths:
I pretty much decided I would keep silent. Especially when he started his press conference on Friday revealing that the horrible disease had spread to his brain. Well—that was until a reporter asked him what he would like to see happen before he died, and when he answered the former president slandered the Jewish State (see video below):
In international affairs I would say peace for Israel and its neighbors. That has been a top priority for my foreign policy projects for the last 30 years. Right now I think the prospects of are more dismal than anytime I remember in the last 50 years. Practically, whole process is practically dormant. The government of Israel has no desire for two-state solution, which is policy of all the other nations in the world. And the United States has practically no influence compared to past years in either Israel or Palestine. So I feel very discouraged about it but that would be my number one foreign policy hope.
Perhaps it’s all the Times he met with Hamas, ignoring their terrorism and declaring they want peace that has clouded Mr. Carter’s memory. But the Author of a book with a title calling the Jewish State an apartheid nation forgets history. The truth is that the last Israeli Premier who did not support a two state solution was Yitchak Rabin. Every prime minister since Peres, Netanyahu, Sharon, Barak, Comb-over...er Olmert, every single one of them declared their goal was a two state solution. Heck under Barack and Olmert, the Palestinians were offered deals which gave them 98% of what they wanted and each time they said no. On the other hand even years after Rabin shook the hands of the terrorist Arafat the Palestinians refuse to recognize the sovereign Jewish State of Israel.
So why would Jimmy Carter take the time to slander the Jewish State at the same time he was announcing the graveness of his illness. That’s easy, Carter hates Jews. (Emphasis in original.)
Read more about the utterly despicable Carter here. I don’t hope for him an agonizing death or anything like that. But honestly compels me to say that I will be delighted when he is no longer around to slander the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.
The fact is that antisemitism is a pretty damn good test of a person’s moral decency — antisemites have none, and Carter is not an honorable, decent man. He is, instead, a national embarrassment who didn’t have the decency to retire following his utterly ignominious presidency, one plagued by failure, both at home and abroad. The only thing that saves him from being the worst president ever is Obama’s presidency. Carter managed to survive long enough to be succeeded by a man even more of an antisemite and failure than Carter himself. What a sad record for American politics.
I love the moral equivalency here: Bush and Cheney’s campaign deleted lots of emails, so Hillary didn’t do anything that wrong!
In fact, the RNC did delete a whole bunch of emails in 2007, and they did so in violation of the Hatch act, but the equivalency ends there. The Bush emails were purely political in nature (hyperlinks and footnotes omitted):
The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted. Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.
The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee, for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an acronym standing for “George W. Bush, 43rd” President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House’s deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to “Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc.”) and rnchq.org (registered to “Republican National Committee”), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.
The “gwb43.com” domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation. Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, “in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications.” The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.
On April 12, 2007, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that White House staffers were told to use RNC accounts to “err on the side of avoiding violations of the Hatch Act, but they should also retain that information so it can be reviewed for the Presidential Records Act,” and that “some employees … have communicated about official business on those political email accounts.” Stanzel also said that even though RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email themselves.
I am not defending the fact that the Bush White House tried to avoid creating records. It’s sleazy and the kind of thing one would expect from political operatives. But come on, Progressive folks! There is no indication whatsoever that what the White House did exposed America’s highest national security secrets to any Hacker who came along. Nor is there any evidence that the Bush White House spoliated documents — which is what seems to have happened with Hillary and the State Department, which deliberate destroyed Benghazi records after Congress had called for their production.
Also, by 2007, when the Bush matter emerged, he was in the lame duck phase of his presidency. There just wasn’t that much political hay to be made of it, so it vanished. This time, however, we have a perennial presidential candidate who has been in the limelight for more than twenty-years and who, in that time, is consistently caught engaged in underhanded behavior. Even if the behavior were morally equivalent (which I do not believe), the political implications are going to be different when the issues arise before a candidacy or at the end of an era.
But again, let me say the really important words that make what Hillary did so heinous: NATIONAL SECURITY and SPOLIATION. Bad Hillary! Bad girl!
I adore my dog and my dog, being part chihuahua, adores me with reciprocal ferocity. I would never confuse myself though into believing that my dog is a moral creature. Perhaps I’m disgustingly anthropocentric, but I believe morality reflects conscious decisions, not instinct. That a cat would rescue her kittens is a wonderful instinctive act completely consistent with Nature’s imperative for the continuation of a species. But that cat did not sit there thinking about the value of her life, versus her kittens’ lives. She just did what she needed.
Years ago, when my son was very little and announced that lions were bad because they hunted down zebras and gazelles, I said they weren’t. “Bad” and “good” imply an ability to make choices about good and bad. When a lion kills, it does so because it is programmed to do so. Moral analysis is not involved. My son, bless his heart, understood. I sure wish the rabid anti-Christians out there had the intelligence of a bright three-year old.
I have one question: Why is it obscene? I understand that we want our judicial system to be from the government, because only the collective will and values of the people should be brought to bear in a criminal case — especially since the government, unlike a private corporation, is theoretically constrained by the Constitution when it comes to criminal process, up to and including sentencing. But considering government’s gross inefficiencies, it would seem to me that (in theory at least) prisoners could fare just as well in a privately run jail, subject to government oversight and competing market forces, as they could in a government-run jail that answers only to itself, no matter how disgracefully managed it is.
What am I missing?
There three things I find funny here. First, Buffet imputes his selfishness to all, as well as confusing charity (which is an altruistic act) with investment (which is a theoretically selfish act that nevertheless yields benefit by pumping money and innovation into the market). Second, Buffet, all historic evidence to the contrary, thinks that government will do a better job of creating wealth than private capitalism. And third, Buffet hangs on to his money with a vengeance. I think I’ll be waiting a long time if I expect Buffet to turn his fortune over to the government for the benefit of the people.
Anyone see the logical fallacy here? Rock doesn’t define the racists. Ordinary people, the one’s who haven’t been brainwashed by our university systems, understand that racism, rather than being endemic in American culture, is almost nonexistent. Our laws are color-blind and the American people will rarely be caught in acts of overt racism — unless you go trolling through the internet’s underbelly for the few KKK wackos, who lack political power or popular support.
In the absence of real racism, the racial justice hustlers are left with “microagressions” that any sentient being understands are faked in order to browbeat and blackmail (hah! racist pun!) ordinary people. So, no, we don’t have to stop being “racist.” We have to stop the race hustlers from lying about what and who we are so that ordinary Americans of all colors can get down to the business of living their lives without government intervention and hustler shakedowns.
As I discuss at greater length below, the problem with American blacks is almost certainly not too little government, but way, way too much. (I’ve also expanded on this thought in a number of prior posts, such as this one.)
Bernie’s good at point out problems. He’s right that it’s a disgrace that so many blacks end up in jail. Of course, his solution is “Thank you, government. May I have another dose of toxic condescension” disguised as genuine welfare. There’s a huge difference between a decent society’s obligation to care for its “widows and orphans” and a racist society’s efforts to keep blacks in perpetual servitude by convincing them that they are incapable of standing and accomplishing things on their own.” Lyndon B. Johnson sure understood how welfare works, and it’s not for the black’s well-being that’s for sure:
Keeping people dependent on the government never lets them develop beyond the infant stage. Depriving them of the right to bear arms keeps them at the mercy of criminals. And constantly telling them that, without the government, they are helpless victims would, if the government were a parent and the blacks a child, be parental abuse that everyone would recognize and decry.
As always, you give the Left a little knowledge and it runs riot in ignorance. While the Founders were adamant that the Federal government not replicate the British government by having a state religion and controlling how citizens worship, the Founders — including the merely “deist/theist” Jefferson — strongly believed that the nation could thrive only on a foundation of Judeo-Christian morality:
“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.” — Thomas Jefferson
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” — George Washington
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams
Unsurprisingly, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, expressed most clearly the Founders’ belief (no matter their personal relationship to God) that, while the federal government could not be a religious institution, only a Godly people could handle the freedom their new nation gave them (emphasis mine):
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
Oh, and about that quotation attributed to Adams with regarding to the U.S. not being a Christian nation, the giveaway is that it was a part of the Treaty of Tripoli. Anyone halfway conversant with that treaty (i.e., no Progressives) knows that this was a treaty signed with the Muslim pirates that the Marines defeated the “shores of Tripoli.” The language was not a disavowal of Christianity but, instead, a reminder that America allowed all people to practice their religion freely, without state intervention (hyperlinks and footnotes omitted):
Article 11 reads:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were “intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.” Lambert writes,
“By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.”
The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with only scant public dissent, most notably from William Cobbett.
I see this everywhere, and it’s a complete canard, one that could be advanced only by people who don’t know that Michele Bachmann has an LL.M. from William and Mary University. I was going to add, as a prop to W&M, that it was Thomas Jefferson’s alma mater, but now that he’s been intellectually discredited on account of his owning slaves when doing so was still the norm, I guess that doesn’t help Bachmann. But back to that stupid quotation:
Several readers asked us to look into whether Bachmann actually made the comments. We obliged and found no evidence backing the claim. We also reached out to Bachmann’s spokesperson, who said the former member of Congress never made the remarks.
We also searched three comprehensive databases — Nexis and CQ, which aggregate transcripts, and Critical Mention, which records video and closed captioning — and found no record of Bachmann ever making those comments.
To our knowledge, she hasn’t appeared on Fox News since Trump announced his candidacy. She has commented on and praised Trump in several interviews on different networks, though she has never mentioned his wall proposal.
We found no evidence that Bachmann ever said this, and her spokeswoman said she did not, in fact, say it. The meme seems to have satirical origins but is now being passed off as fact. We rate the statement Pants on Fire!
Here’s the really interesting thing about Hitler’s win: He never got more than 30% of the popular vote. What Bernie doesn’t get is that the real problem with Hitler was his fascism — which is a form of socialism that, rather than nationalizing industry, merely co-opts it. (I call this crony fascism, and it’s precisely what the Democrats under Obama have been doing for the last seven years.) The reality is that, once a leader and his party gain total control over all facets of government and the economy — which is precisely what Bernie wants to do — you have a recipe for tyranny and war.
Every time I find these posters, and then track down the facts or expose the logical fallacies, I am reminded again that, while I like my Progressive friends because they are, in day-to-day life kind and enjoyable people, when it comes to politics they are monomaniacs, and are precisely as crazy as the nice old lady down the street who lives an exemplary life and then, when she dies, is discovered to have believed that her home was Martian headquarters and that, in order to continue to placate them, her home must be left to her cars, whom the Martians worship.
Monomaniacs can be great people so long as you don’t find yourself dealing with their particular brand of insanity.
The five stages of grief are
It is normal for a human being to go through the five stages of grief, and indeed, to jump back and forth between them as they progress to the fifth stage. So it is for Hillary. She has now gone through the first three stages at least, and, given the latest from her campaign, is likely near stage four. Here are her defenses to date:
1. Denial: There was no classified material.
2. Anger: This is just a partisan witch hunt.
3. Bargaining: Technically I didn’t violate the law. Nothing was marked classified.
4. Depression: The law is stupid. Everything was over classified.
According to her campaign, Hillary now intends to claim that everything is regularly over classified, and thus it is unfair to apply the same standards to her that apply to everyone else who handles classified information. Her campaign tweeted out a link to the Toobin article I addressed here. This from her campaign, via Hot Air:
To get in front of these headlines, the Clinton campaign is plotting a three-pronged pushback strategy. The first, described by Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri in an interview with The Huffington Post, is an end-of-summer effort to educate the public on the classification process for national security material. The second, coming when Congress returns from recess, is to aggressively pivot to policy announcements, from economic and women’s issues to President Barack Obama’s Iran deal, which will receive a vote in September. The last is to “go on offense” on Clinton’s record as Secretary of State, which the campaign sees as the ultimate target of her Republican critics
Unfortunately for Hillary, the over classified argument as well as the “not marked classified” arguments are, by any rational standard, foreclosed to her. This from Reuters:
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton’s emails from her time as the nation’s most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department’s own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department’s own “Classified” stamps now identify as so-called ‘foreign government information.’ The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be “presumed” classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
“It’s born classified,” said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government’s Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House’s National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. . . .
That being the case, Hillary’s last line of defense can only be, as her supporters in the USA Today argue, that she was too stupid to recognize classified information. Good luck selling that one to the voting public or a jury.
If everything stops now, there is no way Hillary survives this politically. Less than one person in three considers her trustworthy even now. After six months of super-pac ads pointing out how she is guilty and that she is getting the benefit of a double standard no one else would get, no one who is not a committed prog. will vote for her. Moreover, the only way she survives this criminally is if the Obama administration orders the DOJ to stop its investigation. With the Reuters report, Hillary could be charged today with numerous separate violations of 18 USC 793 and 1924.
And still to be answered:
1. Did she, intentionally or through gross negligence, allow anyone else to have access to these e-mails who did not have an adequate security clearance.
2. What other classified information exists in the 30,460 emails she provided to the State Dept?
3. Are the emails she destroyed recoverable or still available on back-up? If so, can any be considered legitimate Government Records? Do they contain classified information? Are any responsive to the subpoenas provided to the State Dept. in 2013 and her attorney in March 2015?
4. Is there any evidence that her server or e-mail was successfully hacked and, if so, by who?
The answers to none of those questions will exonerate her. They can only make her situation far worse, adding more separate violations of the laws governing the handling of classified information as well as potential counts of obstruction of justice and destruction of government records. That ought to be enough to put her away for life plus another century or so.
That said, if Democrats can rally around Ted Kennedy, ignore the butchery of Planned Parenthood, and elect Marion Barry and Buddy Cianci after their prison stints, then Hillary and the progressives can take heart. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent her from taking office while in prison. Keep hope alive, my prog friends, keep hope alive.
And here is Steven Brundage doing the same trick to avoid a traffic ticket:
Make no mistake about it: the world is at war. A global “migrant” crisis is sweeping across Europe, the Middle East and North America as people smugglers and warring entities send desperate souls to countries that can ill afford to absorb the tremendous numbers that show up on their soil. Combined with immigrants that are seeking soft borders for a better life it is a crisis that is causing no end of human tragedy, one that is encouraged here in the United States and wreaking havoc abroad.
We must flip the tables on Open Border advocates and expose the lies behind the conventional wisdom that any stance contrary to the Euro-Progressive one is racist or cruel. Illegal immigration is dangerous for everybody involved, leaving a trail of pain, suffering, crime and financial disaster. It is time to have that national discussion and shed light upon the situation within a global scope.
I typically think of immigration in two distinct terms. My first concern is the danger that open border policies have on American society. Drugs, human trafficking, crime, gangs, guns, rapes; essentially all the things that are ignored by open border advocates. My second primary concern is with politicians on both the right and the left who take a stance that is contrary to the concerns and wishes of a majority of the citizens they claim to represent.
Recently I read a post at Legal Insurrection that had me thinking of the immigration problem in a new light. The migrant crisis in Europe and across the globe has gotten so bad that it is being called the worst crisis since WWII.
My first thought when I saw an image of illegal immigrants scaling a wall in Greece (or perhaps Spain) was that I was seeing an eerie real life recreation of a scene from the Brad Pitt movie World War Z .
The parallels between the fictional scenes in World War Z and that of the reality surrounding illegal immigration are striking.
In World War Z the zombie problem quickly grew into a catastrophe of global proportions. The one safe zone is found in Israel where a wall was built around Jerusalem to keep the zombies out and allow screened individuals safe passage in. (Naturally there is an implication that Israel somehow had advance knowledge of the impending plaque and was able to get ahead of the disaster.) The use of a wall is successful until the zombies are attracted to the riches of the safe zone and quickly attack it en-masse until they eventually overrun the border wall and engulf the city. The breaching of the wall destroyed the orderly influx of screened immigrants and everything in the path of the zombie wall climbers was quickly laid to waste.
A wall represents a barrier that is reinforced by a policy that dictates who, when, why and how much. A good wall that is governed by a strategic management plan is the only acceptable way to handle the situation. Once that wall is breached society is no longer protected in a manner that is of the most benefit to the people it protects.
The fictional parallels from World War Z aren’t much different than what is happening across the world today as illegal immigrants pour across Europe and into North America. Their exodus from Central America, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Africa is so massive that nations find themselves unable to provide vital food, shelter and medicine. This in turn has created a circle of chaos where nations and ideological factions blame each other. This is causing widespread resentment as both sides are now desperate because of this human tragedy.
World War “I” is a war with multiple fronts, one that pits nations against human traffickers, citizens against politicians, immigrants against citizens and terrorists against the civilized society. It is the latter that is most grave as terrorists are taking advantage of the situation to fund their wars and evade authorities as they sneak in alongside the refugees they have created.
Much of the global immigration crisis today is an artifact of Islamic based wars in the Middle East (mostly Syria) and Africa (mostly Libya). These wars have spawned a multi-million dollar human trafficking trade that is so evil even ISIS has gotten in on the game by skimming the profits of human traffickers. This human tax is used to fund their wars and buy new weapons of mass destruction. It is now believed that Islamic terrorists, ISIS and others, are sneaking in alongside the refugees to evade detection by the authorities, posing as refugees themselves.
Desperate people are shoved into overcrowded boats and shipped across the Mediterranean only to be killed at sea after being beaten, raped and starved along the way. Others travel dangerous routes by land to suffer the same tragic ending.
Time magazine notes that the Mediterranean has Become a Mass Grave as Europe Struggles With Migrant Crisis. The image below demonstrates common travel conditions.
When we think of these people we should keep in mind that many are minor children, abandoned and sold. Many men and women that are being persecuted in their own native lands, victims of war or victims of rival gangs; it matters not the reason as the journey is much the same.
The destinations are many as illegal immigrants seek refuge and hope in Turkey, Greece, France, Italy, Germany the UK, United States and Canada.
Thousands upon thousands of children, women and men are killed in horrible unspeakable ways as a result and the profits of this trade are going to fund terrorists that want more war.
The situation is so dire that some in Great Britain are calling for an exodus from the European Union because of EU policies that calls for each member nation to take “its fair share” of asylum seekers and refugees, and share the burden of resettlement and deportation of people who aren’t entitled to stay. Problem being that “fair share” is one of those politically charged phrases measured in terms of liberal perceptions that are devoid of reality and often if not primarily based on class systems that pit one against the other. Fair share is an excuse to place an unequal burden on one segment of society to benefit another. In terms of immigration it has member nations in the EU fighting against one another. Not surprisingly the UN is in the middle. Meanwhile the crisis gets worse as solutions are far and few.
Normally this crisis would be a teachable moment except for ideologically marginalized liberals that are incapable of comprehending the disastrous effects of their bleeding heart policies. Rather than do something logical and look at the situation with open eyes they point fingers at each other for not doing enough.
This should be a grave concern for every country by politicians that are charged with protecting the people they represent.
In the United States this crisis is such a low priority that we are given lip service by activists and politicians that see illegal immigration as way to secure low wages on the right and a way to build future coalitions of voters on the left. Politicians on both sides of the political aisle pretend that their encouragement and policy stances have no ill affect on society. They largely ignore the millions of people that suffer and die as they attempt the perilous journey to the promise of a new land. In doing so they ignore the horrible toll that this is having on both the illegal immigrants and the nations they invade.
Immigration, both legal and illegal is the one topic the Republicans could own for the next election. Discussed in the right context it can connect to every single American. It affects every facet of society. Instead the Republican leadership is ready to make war with its own base rather than discuss the cost in real terms, the depressed wages, the increased crime, the overburdened schools, the impact on medical facilities, the rise in the illegal drug trade and the terrible human toll that ranges from rape to beatings and slavery.
This is a disaster that needs more than demagoguing and lip service. It is coming to a head both here and abroad and we should hold every politician that ignores it accountable at the ballot box. This threatens everybody and should be one of the biggest topics of the upcoming election.
I will continue to discuss this topic in future posts. For now please share this on your social sites. We need this discussion. Many thanks to Bookworm for allowing me a forum to publish my research and opinions.
I know I’ve said it before, but it always bears repeating: Noxious news for America makes for good — really good — blog posts, both from council members and from other sites. Don’t believe me? Well, read these:
Ah, the sultry days leading up to the end of summer, when the warm weather brings out the torpor and laziness in all of us and little gets accomplished except by the determined and the desperate.
Of course, these days that group would include the members of the political class and their veritable army of servants, Praetorians, hangers on and staffers.
The Romans were the first to label this time of year the Dog Days(diēs caniculārēs), noting that the skies were ruled by Sirius, the Dog Star, the brightest star in the night sky at this time of year. And Herodotus, Plutarch, Caesar and Thucydides all noted the effect this time of year has on men…the influence of the days of Dog Star giving rise to tempers, frustrations, gambles and many times, war and rumors of war. Some things never change. Or at least that’s what the smart money in Vegas, DC and other oracular venues where the entrails, the Dow or the polls get read for what the omens reveal. The mood can get ugly very quickly.
This week’s contest is dedicated to letting sleeping dogs lie…at least for the moment.
Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.
Hillary’s defenders are claiming that our national secrets are over classified and thus, irrespective of any finding that she handled and retained classified information, it is unimportant. It is all a tempest in a teapot according to David Brock of Media Matters and Matthew Miller at Politico. Ed Morrissey deals with this new spin at Hot Air:
This glosses over a couple of very important points. First, the proper way to reclassify material is to have the issuing authority review it. That duty does not fall to the Secretary of State or her aides, but to the agencies that produced the data, and their direct chain of command, all the way to the President. Not even Congress can declassify material, at least not directly. Users of this material have a positive responsibility to protect it, are briefed constantly on how to handle it while it remains classified, and face severe consequences for violating those protocols and laws, most definitely including prosecution when it involves willful violations or gross negligence (18 USC 793, especially in (f)(1), the application of which is not limited to classified material).
Second, while much of the e-mails flagged (so far) are classified at Confidential and Secret levels — where overclassification is a chronic issue — two e-mails contained information that the issuing agencies considered Top Secret and compartmented. That data came from the NSA and other signals intelligence operations, including satellite-gathered data. Those kinds of information carry high classifications for very substantial reasons, including the protection of our methods of collecting it.
Finally, all of this starts and ends with the exclusive use of an unsecured and unauthorized communications system located in Hillary Clinton’s house, effectively an unauthorized retention of classified material (a crime under 18 USC 1924). There is no valid reason for a federal official with compliance requirements not just for secure transmission of sensitive materials but also with the Federal Records Act to conduct official business through a home-brew server. It was a deliberate attempt to circumvent both responsibilities, and largely succeeded at the latter until the existence of the server became public. As a result, the State Department made numerous misrepresentations in courts in response to FOIA demands that involved communications from Hillary and her team that were required to be part of the public record.
Classifications are not “elastic” either, not to those who handle the material, and especially not when it comes to signals intelligence. They are required to handle it according to the markings no matter what they personally think of its necessity. If Hillary and her staff had a problem with the classification levels cited, then they should have requested a review of the material — and there is no indication that anyone ever did. Even if they had, Hillary and her team were still were required to comply with the laws and protocols while the material was still classified.
Overclassification may be a problem, but it’s not this problem. This problem is that a high-ranking public official secretly evaded legitimate constitutional oversight from Congress and the courts with this e-mail system, which recklessly endangered US national security for four years to service her own personal motives.
Jefferey Toobin raises a very closely related defense at The New Yorker that is deserving of its own fisk. Toobin is supposedly a legal analyst and a lawyer. One could not tell from his recitation of the facts and the law. If he were to make this argument in Court on Hillary’s behalf, he would be eaten alive for misstating the facts and the law.
Before I get to the Watcher’s Council Results for August 14, 2015, I want to direct your attention to two other things: The first is the Watcher’s Council forum regarding the Black Lives Matter; the second is the list of nominations for Weasel of the Week. And now to last week’s winners:
The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.
“Here’s the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh, Oh, Oh!” – Lady Macbeth in Shakespeare’s Macbeth , Act V, Scene 1
“Character is destiny.” – Attributed to Greek philosopher Hereclitus, 500 BC
“There’s hostility to lying, and there should be.” -Bob Woodward
“”Painful as the task is to describe the dark side of our affairs, it sometimes becomes a matter of indispensable necessity.” -George Washington
This week’s winning essay,Joshuapundit’s –#Hillary Lied About Her E-Mails, Broke The Law And What It Really Means is my take on the scandal concerning Hillary Clinton’s private server during her tenure as Secretary of State, the serious issues actually involved and ultimately, what’s behind the curtain. Here’s a slice:
My friend Scott, the same one who wrote this excellent time line and analysis about Hillary’s criminal malfeasance, continues to follow the Hillary saga closely. In a recent email to me, he wrote:
I can pretty much assure you, I and everyone else who ever held a security clearance and dealt extensively with classified documents did a spit take when we heard Hillary conducted all of her email as Sec. of State on a private address and server. That she would be involved with not just classified information, but the most classified secrets of our nation was inevitable.
Go here, watch former CIA Agent turned CNN analyst Bob Baer just rip into Hildabeast as unfit to be President. He’s right.
I agree with Scott, and have only this to add: I think that the more that is revealed, the more it’s clear that she’s unfit to be president. It’s not just that she’s paranoid, arrogant, dishonest, spent too much time sending personal emails on the job, and didn’t give a hang about America’s national security. The underlying problem, one that should be apparent even to her fans, is that she’s dumb as a post. Can we really have someone this staggeringly stupid in the White House?
The recent revelation about Hillary’s offsite server only adds to the impression of someone with a low two-digit IQ.
Oh, and Scott adds that Eugene Robinson unintentionally sums it all up for the left. “He bemoans her decisions, dispenses with her excuses as ridiculous, then says that she’ll be our next President, but we won’t love her quite as much as could have. And I love how he mentions having classified data on her server as a ‘technical violation of the law’ while still crediting the charge of ‘partisan witch hunt.'” Says Scott, “I so detest people who are not intellectually honest.”
My Progressive friends are flooding my Facebook feed with posters dedicated to what they perceive as the “wit and wisdom” of avowed socialist and Democrat Party candidate Bernie Sanders. I thought I’d take a look at what passes for intelligence from Bernie Sanders and his acolytes on the Left. My comments are below each poster. Please feel free to chime and, most definitely, to correct me if I’m wrong:
You’ll constantly see Bernie use this type of “cause” and “effect” rhetoric. To Bernie, too many millionaires and billionaires equals poor children. In this, he is just as sophisticated as the Climate Changistas who attribute every weather event and every societal wrong to climate change.
Here’s the reality about those poverty stricken children, and it has nothing to do with the Koch Brothers (who are Bernie’s favorite bête noire and scapegoat). In a free(ish) market system, there is one sure way to become financially secure: study, marry, and have children, in that order. If you skip studying (and this is true no matter how useless America’s higher education system is), you’re less likely to have money. And if you skip marriage on your way to children, you’ve virtually consigned those children to poverty:
A dramatic rise in unwed births and the accompanying decline in marriage are the most important cause of child poverty in the United States. As Chart 1 shows, in 2009, 37.1 percent of single-parent families with children in the U.S. were poor. In the same year, only 6.8 percent of married couples with children were poor. Single-parent families were nearly six times more likely to be poor than were married families.
The overwhelming majority of poor families with children in the U.S. are not married. (Overall, a third of all families with children at all income levels are not married.) But a staggering 71 percent of all poor families with children are unmarried. By contrast, married couples comprise only around 29 percent of poor families with children. (See Chart 2.)