Filed under: Bureaucracy, Crime, Domestic Policy, History, Intelligence, Law, Media Bias, Military, National Security, Police, Regulation, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Atty Gen Loretta Lynch, Representative John Lewis, Terrorist Omar Mateen
The Orlando massacre was carried out by an American citizen of Afghan family, who went to great lengths, including calling 911, to tell everyone that he was pledging himself to ISIS. Since the shooting was conducted in a nightclub frequented by gays, strenuous efforts have been made by our government to make sure it is connected with homosexuality, and not Islamic terrorism, which is never to be called Islamic terrorism, but only violent extremism or some other bland euphemism.
Yesterday we had the embarrassment of the Justice Department attempting to remove all the evidence of Omar Mateen pledging anything at all to anyone at all by deleting them from the transcript which they released, which brought a significant amount of outrage from those who had been paying attention. They were forced to admit that they had removed Mateen’s many calls to 911. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was forced to admit that Mateen never said anything to cops about specifically targeting gays. The federal government does not want to consider this to be a terrorist attack, they would prefer to consider the whole thing as a hate crime against a core constituency under unreasonable threat in the United States. You can’t blame a liberal administration for a hate crime against gays.
Today Mrs. Lynch talked about how the federal government may never know what Mateen’s prime motive was between gay hate and terror. She added that “Our most effective response to terror is compassion, unity, and love.” The most effective response to terror is to believe the terrorists when they say they want to destroy America and Israel. They do mean it. Just tell the truth.
Whenever there is a terrorist attack, Democrats blame guns, usually what they refer to as “assault weapons,” partly because they don’t know what an assault weapon is (and isn’t), and it sounds more dramatic. The president has started bloviating about “weapons of war on our streets” a term not used when the military was offering their excess weapons of war (scary looking vehicles) to police and sheriff’s departments across the country. Nobody talked about “weapons of war” when they were equipping special agents at the IRS with Ar-15 military style rifles, or when Health and Human Services “Special Office of Inspector General Agents” were being trained by the Army’s Special Forces contractors, or the VA was arming 3,700 employees.
The number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). In its escalating arms and ammo stockpiling, this federal arms race is unlike anything in history.
So it makes perfect sense that 40 Democrats are currently staging a”sit-in”— sitting on the floor of the House chamber because the House’s Republican leadership won’t bring up a gun-control bill for a vote. What they actually want is for everybody on the no-fly list or the possible terrorist list — which seem to be long lists of thousands of people don’t seem to include the people who are actually committing those terror attacks. Michael Medved’s 11-year-old son was once on the no-fly list, and Rep. John Lewis (who is leading the floor-sitting demonstration) was once erroneously placed on the No-Fly list he wants to use to deny due process for those who want to buy a weapon.
Murders are seldom examined seriously, only politically, in the context of gun-control controversies, with the same arguments and the same ideas. Tighter gun control laws do not reduce the murder rate. Here’s Thomas Sowell on “The Gun Control Farce“— a serious look at the data from around the country and around the world. The facts are quite plain. It’s not long, and worth your time.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Intelligence, Law, National Security, Politics, Regulation, The United States | Tags: Congress Shall Make No Law, Silincing Those Who Disagree, Stamping Out Free Speech
The furor over Brexit continues to heat up, and polls waver back and forth. A telling article on the 14th of May pointed out a central issue of concern about the European Union. ‘The President of the unelected executive arm of the EU has vowed to block all right wing populists from power across the continent, shortly after acquiring the power to exert “far reaching sanctions” on elected governments.”
If this seems reminiscent of the Left’s current efforts to stamp out free speech, with the need for “safe spaces” on campus to avoid hearing any disagreeing speech; or the group of attorneys general who want to go after “climate deniers” in the interest of shutting down those who do not worship at the altar of global warming, and getting a big windfall from suing Exxon Mobil; or the effort to simply shut down free speech or do away with the First Amendment, you’re absolutely correct.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that she would release a censored version of Omar Mateen’s 911 calls , omitting any mention of ISIS. She said she didn’t want to “further [Mateen’s] propaganda. (Obama-Clinton U.S l Resolution Against Negative Speech about Islam.) Broadly ridiculed, DOJ reversed course.
Most graduations are over, but the season had its usual numbers of graduation speakers who were protested, rejected, or insulted. I find it hard to imagine that the snowflakes are so unmannerly that they refuse to hear someone who has ideas with which they are not familiar.
U.S. Internet giants Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Google and Microsoft Corp pledged to tackle online hate speech in less than 24 hours as part of a joint commitment with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists.
Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is “expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,” the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday.
We hear the term “Hate Speech” far more than “free speech.” “Hate speech” is just another Leftist weapon to attack anyone who offers a different opinion. Only today, a student called in to Michael Medved’s talk radio show to speak about his professor who would not allow differing opinions in student papers. Unfortunately this is increasingly common. During the 1960s Liberals fought for the right for political demonstrations on campus in the fabled “Free Speech Movement.” Well, time moves on and minds change. Now the Left wants to put people behind bars for any speech that disagrees with standard Liberal talking points.
The other nations in the Anglosphere have vestiges of free speech, but not so much. It is, to be completely accurate, a very hard idea for people to understand. People are all for free speech until someone says something to which they take exception, then it’s hate speech, or they shouldn’t be allowed to say that, or just demand that they shut up. We used to have Polish jokes, and French jokes, and Norwegian jokes, but now it’s all “diversity” and “racism”and “gender identity.”
We all have to think through what is meant by free speech. It is expressed in the First Amendment as forbidding Congress from making any law that abridges freedom of speech, and adds freedom of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can’t shout FIRE in a crowded theater. You can still punch someone who insults your mother in the nose, but you may get hauled in for battery. If you are paying attention, you will find an example of why it is so important—every single day. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn disagreed publicly with Stalin and spent eleven years in the Gulag Archipelago as a result. He was one of the lucky ones.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the Bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” Ronald Reagan
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Law, Military, National Security, Syria, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: CIA Director John Brennan, President Barack Obama, The Islamic State
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Environment, European Union, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Intelligence, Middle East, National Security, Politics, The United States, Unemployment | Tags: Culture War, Democrat Corruption, Liberal lies
The temper out there is quite remarkable, remarkably nasty to be precise. Our current election campaign is quite the nastiest I can ever remember, and anger seethes through the comments of even the most staid columns.
Britain is in the same spot with the battle over BREXIT —Britain’s upcoming vote over whether to exit the European Union or stay in. Only Britain has a scheduled vote, but there is plenty of rumbling in other European nations who are not happy with the influx of migrants, and the response of their governments. The future is uncertain and the people know it and are not pleased with the preparedness.
It’s hard for most Americans to imagine that they would choose to stay in. We’re not much on unelected government passing down laws to regulate our lives, and having no ability to even say ‘Hey Wait a minute! You can’t do that.’ Well, they can and do.
Bureaucrats are the same all over the world. They discover power and that, pushed for, there is no end to the power they can accrue to themselves. They start out intending to do right by the people, and end up establishing a dictatorship, and enriching themselves and their friends and relatives. When people start out promising hope and change, you’d better inquire a bit more deeply into exactly what they mean by the pretty slogans.
We were lucky to be founded by men brought up under English Common Law and the Magna Charta. and all too familiar with the Wars of Religion, but they were soon busy with trying to survive and build communities and deal with wild animals and the native people. A number of the earliest settlers returned to England to fight in the English Civil War with Oliver Cromwell.
In a world run mostly by the divine right of Kings, or Caliphs, or Sultans, or Czars — Democracy and Liberty were an enormous shock to the system, and few expected it to last. The French tried with their bloody Revolution, and ended up with the Napoleonic Wars.
It is particularly interesting then, that the Left, the radical Left, is so determined on eliminating democracy in the name of complete control. It is fairly clear when they want to send “deniers” to prison on RICO charges for disagreeing with their idea that global warming is a huge crisis, when they want to do away with the Second Amendment, as well as the rest of the Constitution, reject patriotism and its traditions — like the Pledge of Allegiance, support open borders and reject our immigration laws.
I have been startled at the way the leftist media speaks the same leftist ‘talking points’ all at once, in the same words with the same exact punctuation, but I never realized what I was seeing and hearing until I posted the video below about “It’s Just What ISIL Wants.” They do it all the time, and we don’t really notice. But that is a very different kind of journalism than we expect in a free country! You can think of dozens of different subjects in which they have tried to set the agenda by repetition of precisely the same words. That is not thought, nor is it journalism — who hands our the talking points? Think Progress?
We have a generation or two of ambitious youngsters who have signed on, not to accurately report events, but to put a label on things before the ordinary person has time to think it through — in the goal of changing the world. I can remember it being reported that the journalism schools were producing young reporters ambitious to change the world. I should have paid more attention. That is really the problem, isn’t it? We are just not paying close enough attention.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Free Markets, Freedom, Intelligence, Media Bias, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, The United States | Tags: Doesn't Understand Business, Hiring Dropped Sharply, Obama's Overtime Rules
Government data released last Wednesday showed the number of private- sector job opening was at an all time high in April. But the companies doing the hiring took on the smallest number of people on a seasonally adjusted basis in nine months. What?
The JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data the government released showed there were 5,2809,000 private-sector job openings in April — 114,000 more than in March. The government report also showed that private-sector hires declined by 169,000 compared to March. Well no wonder eyes glaze over when reading government press releases.
With the private companies advertising so many job openings, why aren’t they filling the openings? The federal government has imposed vastly higher costs for employing people. It is not only more expensive, but it is more complicated as well.
President Obama’s new overtime rule was meant to help workers. Unfortunately too many government people have never worked in the private sector. The government’s new rule effectively turns millions of salaried workers into hourly employees. It won’t increase their earnings, but it will reduce their control over their schedules. Salaried employees get paid to do a job. Hourly workers must be paid overtime for working over 40 hours a week. What happens in real life is that in order to avoid lawsuits to overtime-eligible workers, many employers deny flexible work schedules to them, because it is a big legal risk. Hourly workers are more unlikely to move up to salaried positions. On Wednesday the government raised the overtime “threshold” test for salaried employees to $47,500 a year. All salaried employees making less than that, no matter how advanced their job duties, now qualify for overtime. The Feds just thought they would give workers more pay by making more of them overtime eligible.
When Leftists are in charge of the economy, they usually make a mess of it. They assume that being “the best and the brightest”, their ideas are better but often they are simply transplants from academe who are entirely unfamiliar with business and how it operates. They have spent years envying the captains of industry who make unbelievable amounts of money, and they don’t even have PhD’s. What leftist academics fail to recognize is that the average term of a CEO is only 6 or 7 years, and they got there on the record of lots of successes. A CEO of a major corporation may oversee 20 divisions of 2o,ooo people each, and he has to report to the shareholders every quarter. Silly academics can’t even tell protesting kids to knock it off.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, History, Intelligence, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, The United States | Tags: Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, Rajiv Fernando
Those unimportant emails, that were just for Hillary’s convenience, show that she picked a grossly unqualified donor to the Clinton Foundation to a very sensitive State Department advisory board that handled top-secret national security information — the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) that deals with matters like nuclear disarmament and arms control. It’s a kind of carelessness that can get people killed.
After inquiries from ABC News, Clinton’s staff tried to “protect the name” of the Secretary of State, “stall” the ABC News reporter, but as soon as the donor, Rajiv Fernando, a Chicago securities trader who specialized in electronic investing, learned that the media was questioning the appointment, he resigned, saying he needed to devote more time to his business.
Fernando was a longtime and prolific donor to the Clintons, dating back to 2003. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 bid for president giving maximum contributions to her campaign and to HillPAC in 2007 and 2008. He was a fundraising bundler for Hillary collecting more than $100,000 from others. Prior to the State Department appointment Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group that indirectly helped Hillary retire her 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.
The ISAB is not a normal, or suitable, place to put a big donor. He was a “securities” trader, but not the same kind of “security” as those on the ISAB board. His associates on the board would have been David Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group and UN Chief Weapons Inspector; Lt. Gen Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor to two presidents; two former congressmen; and Former Senator Chuck Robb. William Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, chaired the panel. The appointment would have qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access.
Even more astounding is that Hillary could have believed such an appointment acceptable. Hillary has long demonstrated a carelessness that is entirely out of line with the seriousness of the office to which she was appointed by President Obama. But then Obama’s appointment of Hillary wasn’t all that serious either.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Foreign Policy, History, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, National Security, Politics, Regulation, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Deputy Nat'l Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, Michael Doran, President Barack Obama
The American people have been trying for eight years to understand Barack Obama and to grasp just what his aims are. Why is he doing what he is doing? Here are the pieces I have saved that I find somewhat enlightening. No, I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya, nor does he hate America, nor is he trying to destroy America. He just has some odd beliefs that guide his actions.
Richard Epstein, Professor of Law, fellow at the Hoover Institution had a conversation about Obama on Uncommon Knowledge, with Peter Robinson. Epstein knew Obama at the University of Chicago, and through his next door neighbor who was Obama’s best friend at the time. Posted in 2012. The insight that Obama does not change his mind, that his ideas are fixed in concrete is important.
Fast forward to the present and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes as he explains the Iran Deal, and how they pushed it through by lying to the American people.
Michael Doran, in a widely praised article in Mosaic Magazine took on the task of explaining “Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy.”
And Elliott Abrams followed that up by explaining “What the President Thinks He’s Doing,” also in Mosaic Magazine, February 2015.
At ricochet, Herbert E. Meyer writes about “Obama’s Failed Experiment,” October 2, 2015.
Here’s Jeffrey Goldberg in a widely praised interview with President Obama on Syria and American Foreign Policy from The Atlantic, on June 12, 2016
And today, David Hazony, Editor of The Tower wrote about “The Mind of the President”
Obama is clearly a leftist radical who thinks that most of the problems of the world would be much less troublesome if the United States were not so involved with the world. We are the problem, in his mind. He emphasized that once again today. “We are to Blame, not Islamic terrorism, for the massacre,” by John Podhoretz. Podhoretz says we, once again, have an unmistakable indication that Obama finds it astonishingly easy to divorce himself from a reality he doesn’t like — the reality of the Islamist terror war against the United States and how it is moving to our shores in the form of lone-wolf attacks.
He called it “terror,” which it is. But using the word “terror” without a limiting and defining adjective is like a doctor calling a disease “cancer” without making note of the affected area of the body — because if he doesn’t know where the cancer is and what form it takes, he cannot attack it effectively and seek to extirpate it.
So determined is the president to avoid the subject of Islamist, ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed terrorism that he concluded his remarks with an astonishing insistence that “we need the strength and courage to change” our attitudes toward the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
Some of these pieces are long, but all are deeply informative. Their intent is not to attack the President, but to explore his mind. We are told that he is the most brilliant of all of our presidents, which I seriously doubt. But how can this man, who has taken an oath to protect and defend the American people and the Constitution of the United States possibly view the bloody, senseless massacre in an Orlando night club and announce primly that “We are to blame, not Islamic terrorism, for the massacre.” He has no understanding of the office he holds, none at all.