Monday, May 23, 2016

So You're Sayin' There's a Chance...

If the Donald selects the Newt as his running mate, we may yet see NASA return to the forefront of man's exploration…



And guess who's gonna pay for it…that's right…the Martians.  


Friday, May 13, 2016

Science...


Can't argue with it...



Happy Friday!

Thursday, May 5, 2016

I Will...

I am a conservative...maybe a conservatarian. I have yet to find anybody I 100% agree with on all issues. Even in people I think I completely agree with politically, I'm sure I can find something we disagree on (until of course, I have the time to completely explain my point of view, thereby showing them the error of their ways).

I am a member of the Republican Party. I left the party years ago. I left the party and registered as an Independent some time during the George H. W. Bush presidency.  I don't remember exactly when, but John McCain was my Senator, and I was fed up with the nonsense of the legislature, the bureaucracy, and I hoped for change. I voted for Ross Perot. He was going to change things.

He did.

I learned.

I had no say when I was not a member of the party. And…I helped create everything that Bill, and Hillary are.  Those were precisely the unintended consequences that true conservatives should be looking out for.  A conservative does not stand on principal just to stand on principal. A conservative must think things through to logical conclusion (or as Thomas Sowell says, think past Stage One). A conservative should support an effort to help the poor - but in the end, it must actually help the poor.  A conservative must have principals, but those principals can not get in the way of reality.  They must work to shape our reality. That is a large part of what separates the Left and Right.

And by Right, I do not mean the Republican Party.  I mean the Right. I still have problems with the Republican Party. But I have come to learn, like Ron Paul the libertarian, and Bernie Sanders the socialist, that standing on principal alone will get little to nothing accomplished.

Donald Trump was not my candidate. Out of 17, he was number 18. I would not vote for him in a primary no matter what.  The primaries are over. I will now vote for Donald Trump. I am not concerned if he can beat Hillary. I will vote for Donald Trump. I am not concerned that I do not agree with him on 100% 80% 40% 20% a lot of things.  I know that I disagree with Hillary on 99% (sometimes she votes for free-trade or fair-trade things, though obviously only after the Clinton Foundation has secured agreements)(and then, you're right, those "free trade" agreements are probably full of "unfair" things, so maybe its 100%) of things.

I did the math. I agree with Trump more than Clinton, and therefore I will vote for Donald Trump. He does not represent me. In fact, most of the time, he disgusts me. He is not a conservative in any way, and he is a Republican in name only. But either he or Hillary will be President, and there is nothing I can do to change that.* So if I do not vote, since I would never vote for Hillary, that would be helping her.  I will vote for Donald Trump.



This post is already long, so I will not go into the details of why Hillary would be a dangerous President, that is for another post, I will not go into the details of why not a "true believer" like Obama, Hillary could be more dangerous, that is for another post. Okay, now I will stop going into the details...


From National Review (yes, the anti-Trump National Review):

True True Conservatism by Andrew McCarthy

...In general, I humbly hope to posit arguments that are good enough to bend things, however slightly, in the right direction. Then I move on to the next round, because I expect no permanent victories or defeats. I continue to think the promotion of liberty is not just an abstraction but works when applied practically. I would not narrowly target the message to evangelicals and to conservatives who already agree with me. Still, politics is always give-and-take. You have to be prepared to listen as well as to advocate; “compromise” is not a dirty word as long as the public good is actually being advanced. Surrender camouflaged as “compromise” and “moderation,” however, is cowardice in a time of fiscal crisis, national-security threat, and the very real possibility that our governing framework is being dismantled irreparably. 

The temporary triumph of Trumpism does not change that.



*I would venture that even if indicted, Hillary will remain the nominee. I work primarily violent crime, so no, I'm not working on that.


Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Just Sayin'...




"did…knowingly remove such documents...with the intent to retain…at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials…"

Where you and employee of the government? Check.
Did you possess materials containing classified information? Check.
Did you knowingly retain the materials in an unauthorized location? Check

That's the elements folks.

But just for fun:

Did you direct subordinates in emails to remove classification markings from materials and send on an unsecured system?


Check.

Monday, March 7, 2016

We are at War?

US Drone Strike Kills More Than 150 al-Shabaab Fighters

Are we at war in Africa? Did we invade Sudan? Will this story be talked about in the media after today?

If we had a Republican President, or even a President Trump, these questions would be asked, over and over, and politicians in Washington would be questioning how we knew Americans were not among the campers.

Did we get UN approval - was NATO notified? Did congress authorize an attack in a sovereign country?

[I am not against droning a terrorist camp - if our intelligence community said so, I am good with it. I just think the President should be getting on the news and announcing this, rather than it being a below the fold news story.]

But take note, what if it was a Tomahawk missile strike from a US ship.  Would the news sound different?  What if it was a team of SF guys, in and out, with CIA guys to exploit the intel that was bound to be there.  Would that make more news?

Also note - the story says they were planning an attack on US forces.  US forces where?

Sounds to me like we are at war - missiles, dead guys, planed attacks on US forces.

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 
Syd,
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. 
Toodles,Hills
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.



Example:





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.