Friday, January 8, 2016

Smoking Gun, Ballistic Match...

…finger prints, DNA, what exactly does the press think the FBI is looking for in the Hillary Clinton emails?

I think the press, and a large percentage of the public, is looking for an email like this:

From: HRClinton@myself.comTo: SydBlumRE: End Run around Congress 
Once you sell the weapons to the opposition in uh, that country west of Egypt, make sure to get them to those guys we talked about at the uh, 'undraiser-fay. Ya know, the uh, 'ebels-ray in -yria-say. 
PS Tell Bill I said "hey" at the foundation dinner next week.

In all these debates, interviews, etc., not a single reporter is smart enough to ask follow up questions (maybe they ask, and it is edited out, or she moves on - I'll give them that) when she makes a useless coverup statement regarding her use of personal email?  She has often remarked that previous Secretaries of State had used personal email accounts - ignoring that they did not do that exclusively, and not for classified material.  She has also never accounted for her direction to Department employees the consequences of using personal email accounts for official business.

But - the biggest dance has been when she has, over and over again, said that the emails were not "marked" classified.  This has been shown to the public, and the press, as pointless - as the State Department email system is what adds the classifications.  Gmail does not have a drop-down menu to add SECRET or other markings.  The email system used by the State Department is stand-alone - NOT connected to the Internet. One could manually type the classifications on a regular email system - but that would be an obvious breach of the law.  Obvious to some.

In a previous email Hillary was exposed telling an advisor to just send the information anyway, since it was available to the public in a different form.  The advisor replied that he did not have access to the secure email server - so he did not even have the information.  So if it was in the public, he could have just found it on the Internet and copy/paste.

Now, in the latest email dump, Hillary TELLS AN ADVISOR TO REMOVE THE CLASSIFIED MARKINGS.  Let me repeat that. Hillary wrote, "...turn into nonpaper no identifying heading and send nonsecure."  Identifying heading is the heading that identifies the classification of the document.  Game. Set. Match.  She can not claim that she does not understand when she is instructing a subordinate to send information on a nonsecure setting, without the classification that it has been given.


By the way, two notes - FBI agents are regularly reminded that if they view classified material such as on Wikileaks, it is still classified, and they may not view it - and the FBI agents that are investigating this matter, are reminded that their mandatory annual Classification Marking training is to be completed by June 30, 2016.

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Bill of Obvious Rights...

That is what Madison and Hamilton might have preferred to call the first ten amendments to the Constitution.  They believed that the "amendments" were not necessary.  Why write down that the federal government can not infringe on the right to bear arms?  What power does the Constitution give the federal government to infringe on that right in the first place?  It was not at issue. Some saw that it could be.

"They (first ten amendments) would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
               - Federalist 84 (Hamilton)

How far we have travelled off the path laid down for us…

Wednesday, December 9, 2015


Shall be free…
Shall be secure…
Shall not be infringed...

A National Right-To-Carry-Law should read something like this:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed.  Or words to that effect.

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Drip, Drip, Drip...

"...I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world…After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

When was this written?

A)  2012
B)  1978
C)  1937
D)  1835

"What difference, at this point, does it matter?"

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Without Feck...



  1. lacking initiative or strength of character;
  2. weak, ineffective;
  3. worthless, irresponsible