Archive for the ‘Homeland Security’ Category
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has asked the incoming Trump administration to look into a series of hack attacks that happened over the last year. Secretary Kemp is asking for the investigation to be done by the Trump administration because Kemp thinks the cyberattacks were conducted by the Obama administration.
According to the article, “Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp said DHS has made multiple attempts to ‘infiltrate our network,’ including a ‘large attack’ on Nov. 15, which DHS disputes, that prompted him to send a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson.”
Kemp thinks that DHS attempted these attacks because “Georgia has been pushing back for months against DHS deliberations over whether to classify electoral infrastructure as ‘critical infrastructure'”, adding that these “scans correspond to key election dates and times when I was speaking out against DHS’ plans.”
If Kemp is right that DHS tried strong-arming Georgia to accept DHS ‘protection’, which is what Kemp is accusing them of, then there needs to be an investigation into who performed the scans and who authorized them. It’s apparent that the Obama administration wanted to strong-arm Georgia, which is disrespectful of the Constitution itself. The Founding Fathers wanted most decisions made close to the voters.
Further, let’s study this. Hackers have accessed federal employees’ personal information, including their social security numbers. Compare that with DHS attempting to penetrate and failing. I love the fact that the feds are incompetent but that the state is competent and prepared. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you:
This morning, House Minority Leader For Life Nancy Pelosi issued this statement calling for a bipartisan investigation into the Russians allegedly interfering with our presidential election.
True to Ms. Pelosi’s nature, her statement starts by saying “The U.S. intelligence community has determined that Russia interfered in U.S. elections. There must be no equivocation or ignoring the seriousness of the intelligence community’s conclusion about Russia’s actions. Regardless of the outcome of the election, the American people deserve to know the truth and a commitment to protect our democracy from foreign meddling.”
It’s amazing that Democrats are suddenly interested in cybersecurity. They weren’t interested in it when hackers accessed federal employees’ personal information. That wasn’t the first time hackers accessed government information. This article talks about how disinterested the Obama administration was about the threat hacking posed:
The Office of Personnel Management database penetrated by Chinese hackers didn’t use encryption or other technology to protect the Social Security numbers of federal workers, despite such measures being industry best practice. The massive data breach there affected the records of 4.1 million current and former federal employees and may be linked to a Chinese state-backed hacker group known as “Deep Panda,” which recently made similarly large-scale attacks on the health insurers Anthem and Premera.
Encryption and data obfuscating techniques “are new capabilities that we’re building into our databases,” Donna Seymour, the OPM chief information officer, told POLITICO.
Now that Mrs. Clinton lost, Democrats are interested in cybersecurity. It’s important to separate these issues. It’s entirely possible that the Russians hacked into the DNC’s computers. It’s entirely possible, though, that Mrs. Clinton’s defeat didn’t have a thing to do with what the Russians might’ve or might not have done. To quote Reince Priebus, “the Russians didn’t tell Hillary Clinton to ignore Wisconsin and Michigan.”
It’s entirely different, though, to talk about the issue of cybersecurity. That’s something that the Obama administration gets a failing grade on. There’s no justifying anything else. It isn’t surprising that Ms. Pelosi didn’t mention that the last 3 years.
Stephen Dinan’s article highlights how little leverage Democrats have in the immigration reform debate. Without writing a single new law, Sen. Sessions will be able to pressure mayors of sanctuary cities. As a result, Sen. Sessions’ opponents are coming unhinged.
For instance, Brent Wilkes, the executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said “the agency would become the dispenser of terror and racial intolerance should Jeff Sessions be confirmed.” That’s mild compared with what Charles Chamberlain, head of Democracy for America, said. Chamberlain said “The handful of people who might be even less equipped than Jeff Sessions to dispense justice on behalf of the American people typically spend their weekends wearing pointy hats and burning crosses.”
Democrats are preparing to fight a losing fight against Sen. Sessions’ confirmation as the next US Attorney General. Sen. Sessions will be confirmed. The only question still undetermined is whether Democrats will do as La Raza and other special interests demand or whether they’ll vote to protect their constituents. At this point, I’m betting that they’ll follow these special interest organizations over a political cliff.
Byron York’s article lists some of the things that Sen. Sessions could do the minute he’s sworn in as the next US Attorney General.
There are laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally. Laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally and later committed crimes. Laws for enforcing immigration compliance at the worksite. Laws for immigrants who have illegally overstayed their visas for coming to the United States. Laws requiring local governments to comply with federal immigration law. And more.
Many of those laws have been loosened or, in some cases, completely ignored by the Obama administration. A Trump administration would not need to ask Congress to pass any new laws to deal with illegal immigration. If there was a presidential order involved in Obama’s non-enforcement, Trump could undo it, and if there were Justice Department directives involved, Sessions could undo them, and if there are Department of Homeland Security directives involved, the still-to-be-nominated secretary could undo them.
Once those laws are enforced, illegal immigration will slow to a trickle.
This would definitely change behavior:
End the embargo on worksite enforcement. “Experience has shown that employers respond very quickly and voluntarily implement compliance measures when there is an uptick in enforcement,” Vaughan notes, “because they see the potential damage to their operations and public image for being caught and prosecuted.”
Once cheap labor becomes expensive, corporate policies change quickly. That’s because companies prefer making profits rather than not making profits.
It isn’t a secret why the Democrats’ special interest groups are fighting Sen. Sessions’ confirmation. They’re right in seeing him as an existential threat to their policies. Here’s hoping that the American people punish Democrats for not fixing this crisis.
Technorati: Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Build the Wall, Border Enforcement, Republicans, Chuck Schumer, National Council of La Raza, Special Interests, Barack Obama, Priority Enforcement Program, Sanctuary Cities, Democracy for America, League of Latin American Citizens, Democrats, Election 2018
James Comey has notified the appropriate committees that he’s re-opening his investigation into Hillary Clinton. According to the article, “FBI Director James Comey wrote in a letter to top members of Congress Friday that the bureau has ‘learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.'”
The letter was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as well as ranking members of those committees. Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Robert Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Sen. Charles Grassley, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also were sent this letter.
The key part of Director Comey’s letter is the second paragraph, which says “In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday and I agreed that the FBI should take proper investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether these emails contain classified information, as well as assess their importance to our investigation.”
Here’s the text of Director Comey’s letter:
As much as I’d like to see the FBI recommend Hillary for prosecution, I’m still skeptical that’s what will happen. First, it’s virtually impossible for me to picture the FBI doing the right thing. Let’s be honest, too. There’s verified proof that Hillary sent classified information via her private server. Regardless of what happens with the investigation, this will have an impact on down-ticket races. Here’s a copy of the letter Marco Rubio just sent Patrick Murphy, his challenger:
Technorati: James Comey, FBI Investigation, Hillary Emails, Hillary Clinton, Patrick Murphy, Democrats, Marco Rubio, Jason Chaffetz, Chuck Grassley, Bob Goodlatte, Devin Nunes, Ron Johnson, National Security, Republicans, Election 2016
Hillary Clinton’s ignorance, stupidity really, about terrorism is frightening. During a paranoid rant on the tarmac in White Plains, NY, Hillary Clinton virtually admitted that she doesn’t understand what drives ISIS, saying “There are millions of law-abiding, peaceful Muslim Americans. That is why I have been very clear. We are going after the bad guys and we are going to get them, but we are not going to go after an entire religion and give ISIS exactly what it is wanting.”
I would’ve loved it if she’d gone after the terrorists instead of letting them in via the refugee resettlement program. Mrs. Clinton, for some inexplicable reason, apparently thinks that Trump voters think that all Muslims are evil. Mrs. Clinton’s proof for that doesn’t exist. The truth is that Donald Trump simply said that we shouldn’t admit people into our country through the State Department’s refugee resettlement program if we can’t vet the refugees from that country.
That’s hardly a radical idea, especially in light of this IG report that states “The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) today released a report that found that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) granted U.S. citizenship to at least 858 individuals from special interest countries who had been ordered deported or removed under another name.”
Mrs. Clinton apparently hasn’t figured it out that there are multiple flaws with current refugee policy. First, we don’t know who’s already here. We’ve already seen that the federal government didn’t prevent Tashfeen Malik from getting a fiancé visa even though they knew she’d been radicalized.
Next, if we don’t know who’s here already, we certainly shouldn’t let additional terrorists in through the refugee resettlement program. Mrs. Clinton wants to let in people claiming to be Syrian refugees. Let’s stipulate for this discussion that they’re all legitimate refugees. (They aren’t but let’s stipulate that.) The Crossroads Mall terrorist entered the United States as a refugee as a 5-year-old. At some point, he got radicalized.
The point is that letting ‘refugees’ into the US is exceptionally risky. The best decision is to not let refugees from terrorist nations into the US. The primary function of the President is to protect us. That’s impossible to do when the State Department, which Mrs. Clinton ran, keeps letting potential terrorists in through the refugee resettlement program.
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, State Department, Refugee Resettlement Program, Somali Refugees, Syrian Refugees, ISIS Terrorists, Crossroads Mall, Dahir Adan, Tashfeen Malik, San Bernardino
Predictably, the PR campaign has started after the terrorist attack Saturday night at Crossroads Mall. Members of the Somali community and other community leaders held “a nationally televised press conference on Sunday afternoon at Lake George.”
This article contains quotes from a number of leaders. One of the quotes that I find upsetting is from Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of CAIR. He said “This is a tragedy and we hope from this tragedy we can build a better, stronger community here. A strong St. Cloud that is inclusive and welcoming for all people.”
With all due respect, I don’t feel inclusive when terrorists attack law-abiding citizens while they’re shopping on a Saturday night. Forget about condemnations of violence. What’s expected is assimilation into the American culture. It’s been expected of every immigrant and refugee in US history. The US is multi-ethnic. It isn’t multicultural. Period. The system that this nation’s Founding Fathers put into place is pretty incredible.
That’s the standard. We don’t change. We expect immigrants and refugees to adapt. That’s how it’s done since our nation’s inception.
Hassan Yussuf, community activist: “This incident should not be used to spread hate. It should be used to bring us together because it has affected me, it has affected you, it’s affected everybody.”
What a bunch of crap. The citizens of St. Cloud simply want neighbors that obey the rule of law. Where Islamic religious teachings depart from US law, the citizens of St. Cloud expect everyone to comply with the laws of this city and state. It isn’t that complicated. If that isn’t to someone’s liking, there are other places to live.
UniteCloud: “Never again in our town should we see something like this. So let’s find solutions. This is a test for all of us as a community. How we come out of this defines us as a community.”
This isn’t a test for the entire community. The entire community didn’t commit a terrorist attack. The question that must be answered is whether the Somali community will conform to St. Cloud’s and Minnesota’s laws. If they do, they’re welcome. If they won’t, they aren’t welcome.
It’s that simple.
Pete Hegseth puts it perfectly:
It’ll be interesting to see how Minnesotans react to this terrorist attack. If they’re more worried about terrorism than Minnesota Nice, Hillary might spend the last 50 days getting nervous.
Technorati: Crossroads Mall, ISIS, Terrorist Attack, CAIR-Minnesota, Refugee Resettlement Program, Somali Refugees, Lutheran Social Services, UniteCloud, Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump, Homeland Security, Election 2016
When Hillary Clinton talks about US national security, people listen. It isn’t that they think she’ll tell the truth. HRC’s honest and trustworthy ratings are worse than an ant’s popularity rating at a mid-summer picnic. Some people will listen to hear what absurd lies she’ll tell. Others will listen so they’ll know what she said once Lanny Davis and other Clinton spinmeisters appear on TV to tell us that she didn’t say what everyone watched HRC say.
Those are probably the good old days. Now, the DFL and other Hillary enablers don’t wait until after she’s gotten caught lying. They’re proactive, telling us nonsense prior to her lying to us. This tweet is a perfect example of Democrats being proactive so they can change the subject once a moderator asks about HRC’s statements. The DFL tweeted “When @HillaryClinton talks about keeping our country safe, she means it.”
After visiting HRC’s website, I feel safe. That’s where I read this comforting thought:
The threat we face from terrorism is real, urgent, and knows no boundaries. Horrific attacks like the ones in Paris, Brussels, Orlando, and San Bernardino have made it all too clear: It is not enough to contain ISIS and the threat of radical jihadism—we have to defeat it.
That’s the hard-hitting policy that we need. I feel safer already. Well, I’d feel safer if it wasn’t for this:
On NBC’s Meet the Press, moderator Chuck Todd asked Pence about Trump’s policies to ban Muslims from entering the United States. In recent weeks, Trump has said he would ban Muslims from countries with terrorist activity.
When Todd pressed Pence about what countries those would be, Pence changed the subject to Clinton’s Syria policy. “Well, Hillary Clinton wants to increase Syrian refugees to this country by 550 percent,” Pence said. “Donald Trump and I believe that we should suspend the Syrian refugee program.”
It doesn’t make sense to take out ISIS hotspots in Syria, Iraq and Europe, then invite potential ISIS terrorists to the US through our refugee resettlement program. Despite what Pat Kessler reported, it’s still highly possible for ISIS terrorists to infiltrate the US through the refugee resettlement program.
Hillary’s plan to protect the US from ISIS terrorist attacks is essentially killing terrorists in Iraq and Syria while inviting new terrorists into the US. Killing terrorists there, then increasing the number of potential terrorists in the US seems slightly counterproductive. Then again, how can people feel safe watching video like this?
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, National Security, ISIS, Refugee Resettlement Program, Terrorist Attacks, Pat Kessler, Reality Check, DFL, Democrats, Election 2016
Since the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, CA, various people have said that Muslim organizations should condemn terrorists and terrorism. Some organizations, like the Minnesota chapter of CAIR, aka the Council on American-Islamic Relations, got proactive and quickly condemned terrorism.
Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of CAIR’s Minnesota chapter, said “The Muslim community stands shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Americans in repudiating any action that harms innocent civilians.”
My initial reaction to Hussein’s statement is … that isn’t enough. It isn’t close, in fact. Has CAIR ever reported suspicious activities by radicalized Muslims? Does CAIR admit that specific Muslims are terrorists? How many tips have CAIR’s members called into the FBI or other law enforcement agencies?
Most importantly, has CAIR bit its lip when it saw radicalization happening? If they didn’t speak up, why didn’t they say something? Is it because CAIR, especially its leadership, isn’t capable of spotting radicalization?
Condemning terrorism is better than nothing but not by much. If CAIR leadership and their members aren’t reporting on radicalized Muslims, then they aren’t part of the solution. In his speech to the nation on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush told nations that if they weren’t with us, then they were against us. I’d submit that the same principles must apply to people, too.
If CAIR or other Muslim organizations don’t help spoil terrorist plots, then they’re part of the problem. They aren’t part of the solution.
There’s no question about whether Ted Cruz is a skilled debater. Apparently, though, his debating skills are limited. Sen. Cruz thinks that political opportunity outweighs the need for honesty and intelligence. This time, Sen. Cruz thinks that creating a no-fly zone in Syria is foolish.
During his interview with Bloomberg, Sen. Cruz criticized Sen. Rubio and Mrs. Clinton “for supporting a no-fly zone and arming the so-called moderate rebels. I think none of that makes any sense. In my view, we have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war,” he said, arguing that Rubio and Clinton “are repeating the very same mistakes they made in Libya. They’ve demonstrated they’ve learned nothing.'”
Sen. Cruz should be ashamed of himself. Saying that a no-fly zone is a mistake is a mistake. I suspect that he knows that but he couldn’t resist the opportunity of linking Sen. Rubio and Mrs. Clinton. Building a safe haven, which a no-fly zone would do, might cause a dramatic reduction in refugees leaving Syria.
Is Sen. Cruz foolish enough to think that a dramatic reduction in Syrian refugees fleeing their country is a mistake? Seriously? Is Sen. Cruz foolish enough to think that potentially reducing the number of ISIS terrorists using the crisis to get into western Europe and the United States is a mistake? If he is, then he isn’t qualified to be commander-in-chief.
I don’t think Sen. Cruz is that stupid. I think, though, that Sen. Cruz can’t resist being a political opportunist, even if that means being dishonest.
“If the Obama administration and the Washington neo-cons succeed in toppling Assad, Syria will be handed over to radical Islamic terrorists. ISIS will rule Syria.”
Sen. Cruz, establishing a no-fly zone is the opposite of toppling Assad. It’s simply creating a safe haven for victims of Assad’s brutality. It wouldn’t require but a handful of US boots on the ground while protecting Syrians.
If you want to talk about learning from the past, let’s look into how establishing a no-fly zone in 1991 in northern Iraq created Kurdistan. The US protected the Kurds from Saddam Hussein after Operation Desert Storm. Now the Peshmerga, the Kurds’ army, are one of our best allies in the Arab world. If that’s Sen. Cruz’s definition of a mistake, he should visit dictionary.com. Their definition of mistake is “an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.”
I’d argue that protecting the Kurds and creating a loyal Arab ally in the heart of the Middle East is a success story.
After reading this article, sane people are left wondering what Sen. Paul’s supporters are thinking:
The newest Iowa poll conducted by The Des Moines Register reflects a trend which has been ongoing since polling for this cycle began. Rand Paul, in second place at 10%, is well within the margin of error of the lead, currently held by Scott Walker at 17%. Ben Carson finished with 10% and both Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush earned 9%.
While it is debatable how important it may be to actually win the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus, history shows that it is imperative to finish in the top 4, as each nominee from both major parties has done so since the quadrennial tradition began in 1972. With a possible field of nearly 20 Republican candidates, a poor showing in Iowa could prove lethal to several campaigns.
With that information in mind, the fact that Senator Paul has consistently remained in double-digits since Iowa polling commenced in mid-2012 becomes all the more important and impressive. Paul enters the contest with a bit of an advantage, as his father came within 4 percentage points (or 4,000 votes) of winning the caucus in 2012. In fact, the legacy that the elder Paul left is best represented by the fact that 22 of the state’s 28 delegates pledged themselves to his campaign.
Now that Sen. Paul has announced that he’ll force the expiration of the Patriot Act, his days are numbered. From this day forward, his support will drop until he’s left with his father’s core of loyal supporters. By the time the Caucuses happen, he’ll trail Walker, Rubio, Carson and, quite possibly, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz.
The 2016 Iowa field will be unique in that it will be first in history to feature 2 different past winners (Huckabee and Rick Santorum), but Paul has shown himself to be one of the favorites to win the caucus. Other candidates’ numbers have fluctuated, yet Paul has steadily maintained a solid core of voters.
First, Sen. Paul’s support hasn’t grown. Second, Sen. Paul’s support isn’t reaching into other demographics that are needed to win in Iowa. For instance, Sen. Paul doesn’t have a chance of winning over evangelical Christians because of his strict libertarian views on things like legalizing marijuana and his indifference towards gay marriage. Whether you agree or disagree policy-wise, evangelical Christians won’t support candidates that are indifferent on those issues.
Putting it simply, Sen. Paul’s potential for winning Iowa is virtually nil.
The newest person in line in the Iowa “stock market” of candidates has been Scott Walker, who now averages nearly 20%, but has seen his numbers begin to decline. As recently as January, Walker was polling at below 5%, showing that his reign is likely unsustainable, and could be very well a limited one.
Now that’s fanciful. Wow! Scott Walker has led the RCP average of polls for nearly 4 months, usually with solid leads outside the margin of error. If that’s what a “likely unsustainable” lead looks like, especially one that “could be very well a limited one”, then I’m betting most candidates would settle for such an unsustainable lead.
Josh Guckert is the name of the person who wrote this article but it could’ve just as easily have been Baghdad Bob.