Roger L. Simon is oh-so-cynical, and I agree completely with him #IranDeal

August 11, 2015
Above the rules.

In a jam

In the latest entry in his “Diary of a Mad Voter,” Roger wonders why Hillary supports this obviously bad –pardon me, God awful— deal with Iran and, after considering a couple of minor possibilities, hits a three-pointer, nothing but net:

Nevertheless, Hillary has no choice but to support it for two reasons. One: Bernie Sanders is backing it and he is getting all the popular attention on the Democratic side. But that’s minor and perhaps transitory. The major reason is clear and deserves a separate paragraph.

Hillary Clinton is in such deep legal trouble over her emails that she needs the backing of Obama to survive. [itals. mine] He controls the attorney general’s office and therefore he controls Hillary (and her freedom) as long as he is president. Everything she says and does in the presidential campaign must be viewed against this reality. This is further enhanced by her need to hold together Obama’s electoral coalition. But that’s the least of it compared to having erased 32,000 emails, most of which were undoubtedly government property, and done who-knows-what to the server, something that not even Nixon would ever have dreamed of.

“Boom,” as they say. I’ll admit this hadn’t occurred to me, but it makes perfect sense, like the puzzle piece that makes everything else fall into place. Think Roger and I are being too cynical? Consider this story from today:

Hillary Clinton exchanged top secret intelligence, hands over server

Hillary Clinton’s attorneys have given the FBI her private server and thumb drives contains thousands of emails, her campaign told reporters Tuesday night.

Emails exchanged on Clinton’s private server contained “top secret” information, suggesting material housed on her personal email network were classified higher than previously known.

The State Department inspector general told lawmakers of the highly classified emails, which the watchdog uncovered as part of its continuing probe of the server and the top Clinton aides who used it, according to a report by McClatchy.

Among the four aides under investigation by the inspector general is Huma Abedin, Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff and present campaign aide.

Go read the whole thing.

Now you see what we mean? Far from planning her inaugural ball, Lady Macbeth is instead probably contemplating the possibility of spending a term or two at Club Fed. It’s looking increasingly likely that the only thing between her and an indictment is President Obama telling the Attorney General “not yet.” And if Hillary wants Obama to keep saying those magic words, then she knows what she has to do about the deal he sees as his great foreign policy legacy:

“I’m hoping that the agreement is finally approved and I’m telling you if it’s not, all bets are off,” Clinton told supporters during a campaign stop in New Hampshire.

Clinton said that rejecting the deal would be a “very bad signal to send in a quickly moving and oftentimes dangerous world.”

Careful, Hillary. We can almost see the chain being yanked.

Advertisements

Anthony Weiner: serious question

June 2, 2011

Okay, yesterday I was laughing, but something occurred to me this morning: Congressman “I’m a big deal” Weiner sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That committee includes the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, the jurisdiction of which is:

National energy policy generally; Fossil energy, renewable energy resources and synthetic fuels, energy conservation, energy information; Energy regulation and utilization; Utility issues and regulation of nuclear facilities; Interstate energy compacts; Nuclear energy; The Clean Air Act and air emissions; and, All laws, programs, and government activities affecting such matters.

(Emphases added)

Weiner does not sit on that subcommittee. But, since the full committee’s purview includes areas considered by the subcommittee, that means Representative Weiner almost certainly has a “top secret” security clearance so he can be properly informed when considering issues dealing with our nuclear power plants, not just technological secrets but also their physical security in an age of mass terrorism.

Think about that.

Anthony Weiner has just shown the world how irresponsible and careless he is. Forgetting for a moment his apparent inclinations toward infidelity, his childish “sexting” makes him vulnerable to blackmail (1). The Soviets used to do it all the time, and you can bet our enemies would be happy to do it today:

“So, Tony. What’s it going to be? Do we get details of the security at San Onofre, or does your wife get to see those other pictures, the ones that you thought were safe, when she opens tomorrow’s ‘Post?'”

Sure, the dialogue is corny, but the situation is potentially quite real.

So, let me ask: Is there any reason why this juvenile dope shouldn’t lose his security clearance and be consigned to the Committee on the House Cafeteria?

(1) Anyone willing to bet that this is the first time he’s done this, and there aren’t more photos out there? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


California: Jerry Brown lives down to expectations

January 5, 2011

Well, that didn’t take long. Either we do what Jerry says and continue our exorbitant tax rates or the kids get it:

Gov. Jerry Brown will spare K-12 schools from further drastic cuts in his budget – so long as voters extend higher income taxes in a special election, according to sources familiar with his proposal.

The tradeoff wouldn’t cure education ills, and many districts would still face another year of fewer school days and larger class sizes. But it could avert even deeper cuts after years of school rollbacks and help Brown galvanize powerful education support for tax hikes in a June special election.

“If something like that happens, I’m going to be looking for the feet to be kissed,” said Kevin Gordon, a veteran education lobbyist, of the Brown education proposal. “The big question is, what will the voters do, and if voters don’t come through, will we go through incredible anxiety all over again?”

Brown does not plan to suspend Proposition 98, the state’s minimum guarantee for K-12 and community college funding, though he may seek to do so if the tax hike extensions don’t pass.

For those not familiar with our Sacramento-based soap opera, this is a ploy the legislature (and pliant governors like Schwarzenegger) have used in recent years to scare us into voting for new taxes: promise doom and the death of beloved programs unless we agree to give them even more money. And the newspapers act as their shills. It’s emotional blackmail at its worst, a typical liberal-statist ploy to avoid any real cuts to their precious spending by scaring the public.

And it ignores very real areas in which substantive cuts could be made, cuts that should be considered before any tax-hike proposal. Jon Fleischman of Flash Report has listed several in a hard-hitting post:

  • Have we ended collective bargaining for public employees?
  • Have we gone through and eliminated every possible state employee or contractor possible, streamlining our workforce such as in the private sector?
  • Have we privatized anything (roads, prisons, universities)?
  • Have we eliminated some of the vast array of hundreds of state boards and commissions?
  • Have we made permanent changes to social welfare spending to prevent future spending abuse?
  • Have we put forward repealing unspent bonds (especially high speed rail)?
  • Have we eliminated all of those high-paying, cushy commissions that are landing pads for termed-out legislators?
  • How about implementing all of the cost-savings suggested in the comprehensive California Performance Review?
  • How about ending taxpayer-provided cars (two of them) for members of the legislature?
  • Or how about ending the use of legislatures using public funds to mail “push-surveys” to constituents?

I’ll add another: Have we eliminated the subsidies to community colleges, which cost the taxpayers over $4 billion per year? Yes, it will be hard on their students to have to pay market rates, but higher education is a public good, not an unalienable right. In times of hardship with no new revenues coming in, these are the hard choices we have to look at.

And speaking of new revenue, notice there’s no mention of exploiting this state’s vast natural resources to raise money through royalties. Former Assemblyman Chuck DeVore had a very good proposal to develop the vast oil wealth off the California coast by use of safe slant-drilling techniques for an estimated $16 billion a year in new revenue. That would go a long way toward curing our deficit. Why tax us into penury when we have “money in the vault?”

Back to Jerry’s proposal blackmail: the taxes he wants to extend were enacted as “temporary” measures in 2009, and voters defeated a ballot initiative that same year to extend them for two years — an initiative accompanied by similar dire warnings of DOOM! if it did not pass. We turned it down then 2-1 and, if Jerry and the liberal-statists who control the legislature want to have that battle again, bring it on. California has a spending problem, not a tax-revenue problem. Until we see deep cuts in spending to match revenue, new revenues outside of taxes, and changes in the ways the spending of our money takes place, the Mandarins of Green Dome on 10th Street get nothing.

PS. Anyone else note the deep irony of liberal Democrats, who proclaim their concern for the children ad nauseam, trying to get their way by threatening… the children? One could almost drown in the depths of their insincerity.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)