Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the National Security category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘National Security’ Category

When President Trump signed an executive order (EO) banning Syrian refugees from entering the United States, several Democrats freaked out. Chuck Schumer went drama queen, saying that tears were streaming down the Statue of Liberty’s face. Sen. Warren said that the move was “a betrayal of American values.” Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) “wrote in an Huffington Post op-ed that ‘Trump has now handed ISIS a path to rebirth.'” Sen. Feinstein said “there is no legitimate national security reason to ban refugees, the vast majority of whom are women and children who have experienced absolute horror.”

SPECIAL NOTE TO SEN. MURPHY: ISIS hasn’t stopped expanding its operational capabilities. It’s impossible to be reborn if you’re still growing your operational capabilities.

This article highlights how ISIS is using the Syrian refugee crisis to infiltrate its operatives into Europe. According to the article, “On a crisp morning last October, 198 migrants arrived on the Greek island of Leros, all of them seemingly desperate people seeking sanctuary in Europe. But hiding among them were four men with a very different agenda. The four were posing as war-weary Syrians — all carrying doctored passports with false identities. And they were on a deadly mission for the Islamic State.”

That isn’t all. There’s more:

Two of the four would masquerade as migrants all the way to Paris. There, at 9:20 p.m. on Nov. 13, they would detonate suicide vests near the Stade de France sports complex, fulfilling their part in the worst attack on French soil since World War II.

It’s frightening that Sen. Feinstein would say that these refugees don’t pose a national security threat to the United States. If ISIS terrorists can make it to western Europe disguised as refugees, ISIS terrorists can make it to the United States disguised as refugees. This should wake up Democrats. Either that or it will expose them as total ISIS deniers:

There’s more:

European security officials say they think that the Islamic State has seeded terrorist cells on the continent over the past year and was able to do so in part because the European Union failed to come to grips with a migrant crisis that opened a funnel for the militant group. Europe is now working with Turkey to bar its doors, ending the waves of irregular migration that washed over the continent last year. But more than a million migrants, a record, have already entered. Hundreds of thousands of them, European intelligence agencies say, may have done so without thorough checks at their entry point: Greece.

The vast majority of migrants were genuinely fleeing war and poverty. But over the past six months, more than three dozen suspected militants who impersonated migrants have been arrested or died while planning or carrying out acts of terrorism. They include at least seven directly tied to the bloody attacks in Paris and Brussels. The Islamic State is gloating that they have far more lying in wait. “We have sent many operatives to Europe with the refugees,” an Islamic State commander said in an interview over an encrypted data service. “Some of our brothers have fulfilled their mission, but others are still waiting to be activated.”

Sen. Feinstein, doesn’t this indicate that ISIS ‘refugees’ pose a legitimate threat to US national security? If it doesn’t, why doesn’t it?

The Statue says “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” It doesn’t say “Give me your terrorists who want to create havoc within our nation.”

It isn’t wrong to accuse the Democratic Party of becoming the Party of ISIS Deniers.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

If there was ever a doubt about whether Senate Democrats would be obstructionists, this article should shout ‘Democratic obstructionism’. President Trump announced today that he’ll announce his SCOTUS nominee next week sometime. Democrats are feeling bitter that Republicans give Merrick Garland, President Obama’s pick to replace Antonin Scalia, a committee hearing.

It isn’t surprising to hear that “Democrats and their allies remain furious that Senate Republicans refused to even consider Judge Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to the high court, with 10 months remaining in Mr. Obama’s second term. That deep resentment is certain to color their handling of Mr. Trump’s choice just as it has contributed to their resistance to moving quickly on Mr. Trump’s cabinet selections.”

I respectfully disagree with that last statement. Democrats aren’t just upset with the fact that Republicans didn’t hold a hearing on Judge Garland. They’re also upset that Hillary lost. They’re upset that they didn’t retake the majority in the Senate, too. They’re upset that their coalition was demolished by ‘blue collar billionaire’ Donald Trump.

That’s their fault. Democrats hitched their wagon to Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s stars. The DNC leadership team was corrupt to the point that they, not voters, picked Hillary Clinton to be their presidential nominee. Mrs. Clinton ran the worst campaign in the last half-century.

All indications are that they see the forthcoming nomination as a chance to take a strong stand against the new president, since they still have the power to filibuster a Supreme Court choice — at least for now.

Democrats now think that resisting the newly-sworn-in president is their path back to power. What they’re really doing is paving the way for his re-election.

People won’t agree with Senate Republicans not granting Garland a hearing but they definitely won’t agree with Democrats acting like spoiled brats, either. That’s what the Democrats’ ‘resistance’ looks like to apolitical people.

Top Democrats say they don’t intend to play “tit for tat” with the nomination. But they say they will insist on what they consider to be a mainstream candidate capable of securing at least the 60 votes needed to thwart any filibuster. Otherwise, they promise to do whatever they can to block the nominee.

The Democrats are being stupid. If President Trump nominates Judge Gorsuch, he’ll be nominating a solid judge whose opinions are well-written. Do Democrats really want to put up a big fight against an articulate judge? It’s their option but I wouldn’t advise them to do that. That’s wasting tons of political capital on a lost cause. If Democrats filibuster President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, they’ll put the Supreme Court off-limits for a generation. This is the face of Democratic senators:

This is rich:

“We are not going to do what the Republicans did,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, “but if the candidate’s out of the mainstream, I can tell you I will fight and my caucus will fight tooth and nail against them.”

That’s coming from the liar who sabotaged Mike Pompeo’s confirmation vote.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

When I wrote this post, I hadn’t read Stephen Hayes’ devastating article about Sen. Chuck Schumer’s dishonesty. In the post, I wrote that Democrats put a higher priority on their PR stunt, aka “the Resistance”, than they put on protecting national security.

I wasn’t as cynical as I should’ve been. According to Hayes’ article, according “to six sources familiar with the negotiations over Pompeo’s confirmation, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told Republican leaders that he would allow Pompeo to be confirmed by voice vote on Inauguration Day, along with two other Trump nominees who have national security responsibilities. But Schumer broke his promise, these sources say, and offered an insulting excuse for having done so.”

Later in the article, Hayes wrote “McConnell consulted Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, Intel committee member Tom Cotton, and the incoming Trump administration. Republicans agreed to delay Pompeo, whose team was happy to have an extra day to prepare. But the Republicans had a condition. If we agree to push back Pompeo’s hearing for a day, they told Schumer, you must agree to include him in the group of national security officials who will be confirmed by a voice vote on Inauguration Day, January 20. According to these sources, Schumer agreed, with alacrity, having secured the delay he’d sought.”

That didn’t happen:

But on January 19, one day before Trump’s inauguration, Ron Wyden said he’d seek to delay Pompeo’s confirmation when the Senate convened late Friday afternoon. That evening Cotton, who is close to Pompeo from their time together in the House of Representatives, began calling his colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Wyden, seeking to avoid the delay. Some of the calls were cordial. Others were testy.

The Senate reconvened after the inaugural ceremonies on Friday, with Pompeo’s nomination set to come up at 4:50pm. Cotton angrily confronted Schumer about his broken promise. According to witnesses, Schumer told Cotton to lower his voice and asked him move off of the Senate floor to an adjacent hallway for a private discussion. “We need to take this out into the hallway,” Schumer said. Cotton walked with Schumer but loudly rejected his first request. “Don’t tell me to lower my voice!” he shouted, with an additional salty admonition tacked on for emphasis. Burr and Cornyn were present, as was Senator Mark Warner, ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and several aides.

Schumer told Cotton that the Senate had never previously confirmed a CIA director on Inauguration Day and if Cotton had been around eight years earlier, he’d know that Republicans didn’t extend that courtesy for incoming president Barack Obama. “Eight years ago, I was getting my ass shot at in Afghanistan,” Cotton snapped. “So don’t talk to me about where I was 8 years ago.

Sen. Schumer shouldn’t be trusted. He’s always been a snake whose word was worthless. Sen. McConnell should try to work with trustworthy Democrats while avoiding dealing with Sen. Schumer as often as possible.

Sen. Schumer is a liar. I don’t trust him whatsoever. If he tries filibustering President Trump’s SCOTUS nominees, I’d blow up the filibuster, then name it the Schumer Option. I’d explain that name by saying Sen. Schumer’s dishonesty forced the rule change.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

By not confirming President Trump’s national security team the first day in office, Democrats are signaling that their resistance, aka their political stunt, takes precedence over national security. That’s a disgusting signal to send.

It’s one thing to not confirm Rex Tillerson immediately. There were legitimate questions about him. It’s quite another to not confirm Jeff Sessions as AG or Mike Pompeo as the director of the CIA. There weren’t any questions about whether Mssrs. Sessions and Pompeo were qualified.

Michelle Goldberg of Slate Magazine insists that “The Trump Resistance will be led by angry women.” That’s possible, though I’m a bit skeptical of that prediction. Right now, it’s being run by idiots like Chuck Schumer, Keith Ellison and Hollywood ‘stars’ like Madonna and Ashley Judd.

Why would anyone think that (I’m stealing a phrase from Rush Limbaugh) this “endless parade of human debris” is the Democrats’ ticket back into America’s hearts? Salena Zito’s column says that President Trump needs to start healing this nation’s divisions. I’d love to see it, though I can’t picture Democrats being a willing partner anytime soon. I can’t picture that after watching this video:

It’s time for Sen. Schumer, House Minority Leader Pelosi, Rep. Ellison and their legion of parasites to stop with the PR stunts and start putting America’s needs first. They can start by telling Sen. Schumer to stop resisting and start confirming President Trump’s nominees to lead his national security team:

To Sen. Schumer: Enough with the shenanigans. Start putting America first for a change.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows. It doesn’t get stranger than President Obama commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning. It’s unforgivable for President Obama to commute the sentence of the soldier “who was convicted of stealing and disseminating 750,000 pages of documents and videos to WikiLeaks.”

This is further proof that President Obama is the worst national security president of my lifetime by orders of magnitude. He’s worse than Jimmy Carter, which is something I didn’t think I’d ever say.

President Obama has rightfully criticized Russian President Putin for hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s computers, though the DNC pretty much left them unprotected. What’s puzzling (and infuriating) about his commuting 28 years (80%) of Manning’s sentence is that Manning’s actions caused the death of American soldiers and intelligence assets.

What’s especially chilling is that President Obama “overruled his secretary of defense to commute the sentence of former Army soldier Chelsea Manning.” President Obama commuted the sentence of a soldier who got American soldiers killed. It doesn’t get more pathetic than that.

President Obama’s commutation of Manning’s sentence is proof that his priorities and thinking aren’t right. Thank God he’s almost irrelevant. The biggest question left is how much more damage he can do to America’s national security in his hours left.

This article highlights what Manning did:

Diplomats are like journalists, doctors and lawyers: their jobs depend on the trust and confidentiality of those with whom they speak. As the US military engages increasingly in civil affairs, soldiers are not much different.

Manning not only burned the sources of hundreds of diplomats, but she effectively dissuaded foreigners from trusting any future American official. The exposure may also have cost lives: Both al Qaeda and the Taliban combed through documents to identify those cooperating with the United States.

This sums her up perfectly:

Make no mistake: Manning was neither an altruistic liberal nor free-speech warrior: She was a narcissist and would-be tyrant who believed rules did not apply to her. She was not motivated by a desire to expose wrongdoing, for she ignored channels used by generations of whistleblowers and instead sought the wholesale exposure of ­government secrets.

This is what a traitor looks like:

Let’s take a moment to appreciate the fact that Democrats are coming unhinged at the things Donald Trump is doing. This op-ed, written by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.), and Sen. Ben Cardin, (D-MD), is a perfect example of how Democrats are coming unhinged.

It’s apparent that they’re unhinged when they write “Second, Trump is treating the secretary of State nomination like a reality television show. When it comes to the selection of our nation’s chief diplomat, we expect Trump to nominate someone who possesses unquestioned expertise, experience and judgment — not a political loyalist or ideological firebrand, characteristics of many of the individuals already surrounding the president-elect.”

What a pair of hypocrites. I didn’t hear a peep from either of these liberals when President Obama packed the NLRB with ideological firebrands. They certainly didn’t participate in the NLRB v. Noel Canning lawsuit that was brought because President Obama decided to declare when the Senate was in session. The Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling against President Obama in that lawsuit is proof that President Obama didn’t hesitate in playing the part of ideological firebrand. Again, Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Cardin didn’t utter a peep.

Further, I’d love hearing Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Cardin explain how President Obama didn’t surround himself with “political loyalists” when he brought in Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett, Anita Dunn and David Axelrod.

Then there’s this:

Finally, we have been alarmed by the cavalier manner in which the president-elect appears to be approaching his initial interactions with foreign heads of state and other political leaders, potentially setting the stage for multiple diplomatic crises that could easily escalate.

In his calls with foreign leaders, President-elect Trump has unnerved our partners, raised questions about U.S. commitments and even reportedly expressed tacit support for extrajudicial killings. Moreover, in preparing for these conversations he has ignored experts in U.S. intelligence agencies and the State Department.

Again, Sen. Feinstein didn’t criticize President Obama for saying he wouldn’t put pre-conditions on calling Iran, then and still the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Is Sen. Feinstein ignorant of how that raised questions about the Obama administration’s support of Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia? More than a few of President Obama’s decisions escalated into international crises. Where was Sen. Feinstein then?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article reports that Donald Trump has asked Sen. Jeff Sessions, (R-AL), to be his attorney general. The report’s opening paragraph states “President-elect Trump has decided he wants Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions to be his attorney general in his new administration, according to multiple reports.” The next paragraph reports that CBS News first reported it in this article.

CBS is reporting that the “choice of Sessions to be the nation’s top prosecutor is sure to be controversial. Sessions has been one of Mr. Trump’s closest and most consistent allies. But when Sessions faced Senate confirmation for a job 30 years ago, it didn’t go well.”

Democrats have to pick their fights wisely so it isn’t a foregone conclusion that they’ll give Sen. Sessions a difficult time. If they object too vehemently, Republicans could make the Democrats’ life in the minority for the next 4 years (and probably longer) difficult. New incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer might want to save his political capital for a fight he’s got a chance of winning. Sen. Schumer has to know that Sen. Sessions is someone that President Trump would fight for. History isn’t filled with incoming presidents not getting their national security picks confirmed.

This NY Times article highlights the fact that liberals haven’t come to grips with the fact that the nation rejected President Obama’s agenda this past Tuesday night.

Dan Pfeiffer, a senior advisor to President Obama, said “It was not a rejection of Obama or Obama-ism. It was probably more about the two candidates running in this election.” It’s indisputable that Hillary wasn’t a good candidate. Still, this isn’t an either-or situation. Just like FBI Director Jim Comey didn’t lose this election for Hillary, it’s equally true that President Obama’s policies tied a millstone around Hillary’s neck, too.

Obamacare was something that Mrs. Clinton couldn’t avoid. With premiums skyrocketing right before the election, Hillary was essentially silent. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, Bill Clinton and Gov. Dayton criticized the ACA right before the election. From that point forward, Mrs. Clinton was trapped in an impossible situation. From that point forward, President Obama’s signature achievement was attacked. It will be largely dismantled, which is good news for families because it’s hurt more people than it’s helped.

President Obama’s aides are citing President Obama’s accomplishments:

Moreover, although Mr. Obama said that all of his progress would go “out the window,” advisers now argue the opposite: that many accomplishments cannot be overturned. He will be remembered, they said, for pulling the country out of the Great Recession, saving the auto industry, bringing home most troops fighting overseas, killing Osama bin Laden, enacting higher fuel efficiency standards and restoring relations with Cuba.

Killing bin Laden was something big that he’ll deservedly get credit for. I don’t think he’ll get credit for pulling the nation out of the Great Recession, though. TARP was enacted before the 2008 election. That pulled us out of the Great Recession. Further, Obamanomics never worked that well. Economic growth has been anemic for 8 years. (It’s difficult to claim that President Obama pulled us out of the Great Recession when economic growth was virtually nonexistent for 8 years.

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to say that President Obama pulled us out of the Great Recession when voters elected Donald Trump. Trump specifically ran on a program that’s intent on reversing most of President Obama’s economic agenda. Trump plans on enacting tax reform, including the lowering of marginal tax rates, regulatory reform that’s killing the energy industry and repealing the ACA. I’m betting that this talking point will disappear once those things are enacted and the economy starts growing at a robust clip.

Bringing the troops home is something President Obama’s political base will appreciate but I don’t think the nation at-large agrees. They won’t agree because the price of bringing the troops home was the rise of ISIS.

This is President Obama from Fantasyland sounds like:

“When I think about the polarization that occurred in 2009 and 2010, I’ve gone back and I’ve looked at my proposals and my speeches and the steps we took to reach out to Congress,” he told the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin in a pre-election conversation published by Vanity Fair. “And the notion that we weren’t engaging Congress or that we were overly partisan or we didn’t schmooze enough, or we didn’t reach out enough to Republicans — that whole narrative just isn’t true.”

First, Speaker Boehner didn’t reject President Obama’s stimulus plan out of hand. Second, it was President Obama that rejected the Republicans’ ideas without giving them serious consideration. He told Eric Cantor that “elections have consequences. You lost.”

When his policies get dismantled, which is inevitable, he’ll have nobody but himself, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to blame.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saying that this election isn’t like most elections is understatement on steroids. I thought I’d seen everything but I haven’t. Piers Morgan’s op-ed is spot on, which is something that I never thought I’d say.

Then again, I didn’t think I’d hear Piers Morgan say “Yet despite this unprecedented bombardment of mainstream abuse, Trump’s poll numbers keep rising and his chances of becoming President keep increasing. The reason, to me, is obvious: tens of millions of Americans just don’t agree with that withering verdict. They think Trump’s a fiery, flamboyant, super-rich, shoot-from-the-hip buccaneer on a mission to make America great again. They agree with him about illegal immigration, about big Government corruption, about Wall Street greed, about ‘crooked’ Hillary Clinton and most pertinently, about the threat of Islamic terrorism.”

This is an election of opposing factions. That’s indisputable in my estimation. One faction a) is complacent, b) believes in the status quo and c) thinks we’re in a narrative fight with ISIS:

It’s frightening to think that there’s videotape proof that the White House Press Secretary actually said it’s a narrative war and that we’re winning that fight. What’s almost as frightening is that the DC media criticized Donald Trump for calling the bomb that went off in New York City a bomb. What’s almost as frightening is that they didn’t post a single tweet when Mrs. Clinton also called Saturday night’s attack in New York City a bombing.

The reason why people are warming up to Mr. Trump is because he isn’t afraid to call a pressure cooker bomb explosion a bombing. Millennials immediately identified that pressure cooker bomb as a bomb. Then they saw Mrs. Clinton tap dance her way through her solution. I can picture millennials scratching their heads when they heard Mrs. Clinton say “We should also launch an intelligence surge to help identify and thwart attacks before they can be carried out.”

Meanwhile, Trump isn’t afraid to take a little heat to tell people that we can’t keep importing terrorists through the State Department’s refugee resettlement program. It’s like the first rule of holes; if you’re in one, stop digging.

We know that there are refugees here who have gotten radicalized. We know this because, in Minnesota, 3 Somali refugees were convicted of “ISIS-related terrorism charges.” Another 6 Somali refugees accepted plea deals on essentially the same charges.

With acts of terrorism accelerating both internationally and here at home, it isn’t surprising that people are flocking to Donald Trump. They don’t agree with all of Trump’s solutions but they definitely appreciate the fact that he’s willing to call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack, a terrorist a terrorist and an exploded pressure cooker bomb a bombing.

This is where Morgan delivered the kill shot to Mrs. Clinton:

But what neither she nor Obama offers the American people is any kind of plan to combat such attacks. They talk of how awful it all is, but studiously avoid advocating any real action for fear of upsetting or offending people.

The President doesn’t even like using the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’, which is utterly absurd given that’s plainly what it is. In the face of such apparently weak, insipid, mealy-mouthed and frankly meaningless rhetoric, it’s hardly surprising that Trump emerges as a non-PC, no-nonsense voice of reason to many Americans.

Another way of putting it is that Americans want a leader. Mrs. Clinton isn’t a leader. She’s too cautious to be a leader.

The thing that’s selling Trump to the American people is that he’s speaking their language to them. He isn’t tap-dancing his way through a politically correct word salad to not offend someone. If Trump wins, something that’s still in doubt, I think it’ll be because the American people chose a leader.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The other night at NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum, Hillary Clinton potentially offered a glimpse of her debate performances. She potentially offered that glimpse by twisting herself into a pretzel. HRC is prone to that because she’s caught in an impossible situation. She’s caught in an impossible situation because she’s gotten caught lying about sending and receiving classified emails on her private email server.

The impossible situation started with a question that went like this “As a naval officer, I held a top secret, sensitive compartmentalized information clearance and that provided me access to materials and information that was highly sensitive to our war-fighting capabilities. Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned. Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are trusted with America’s most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?”

Predictably, Mrs. Clinton started her oratorical gyrations, saying “Well I appreciate your concern and also your experience, but let me try to make the distinctions that I think are important for me to answer your question. First, as I said to Matt, you know and I know, classified material is designated. … And what we have here is the use of an unclassified system by hundreds of people in our government to send information that was not marked, there were no headers, there was no statement top secret, secret, or confidential. I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system. I took it very seriously.”

Mrs. Clinton should consider herself fortunate because she lied with that reply. Classified material is supposed to be protected whether it’s got the markings on it or not. Also, we know from Jim Comey’s testimony that there were emails on Hillary’s server that contained classified material. It’s possible that Mrs. Clinton occasionally used “a wholly separate system” to communicate classified materials but she certainly didn’t use that separate system consistently, much less all the time.

Because she’s caught in that impossible position of defending the indefensible, there’s a high probability that she’ll corkscrew herself into the ground in the debates. Those are the types of replies that might create an election-shifting moment.

Technorati: , , , , , ,