US Presidential Contenders

[Buster's Uncle]

* The FBI has leaked that Hillary was approving drone strikes on her unsecured system.
 

I didn't think Secretary of State had that authority in the chain of command?

-I s'pose she might get consulted on spook activity sometimes, them being so intertwined with the State Department, IF it was a spook operation.  One can imagine certain political hits getting kicked around outside the actual chain of command...

[Rusty Edge]

* The FBI has leaked that Hillary was approving drone strikes on her unsecured system.
 

I didn't think Secretary of State had that authority in the chain of command?

-I s'pose she might get consulted on spook activity sometimes, them being so intertwined with the State Department, IF it was a spook operation.  One can imagine certain political hits getting kicked around outside the actual chain of command...

Yes. IIRC- Apparently the CIA finds a targeted individual, and few, such as the Secretary of State have a narrow window in which to give a Yea or Nay in a Roman Colosseum kind of way.  The CIA is miffed that Clinton was potentially jeopardizing operations by doing this on unsecured channels for her convenience on weekends and holidays ... or something like that. 

Clinton was being circumspect, but that's not the same as encrypted.
*****

What does the leak mean? That the Justice Department is preparing to let her off with a reprimand rather than criminal charges and a righteous agent decided to let her stand trial by public opinion?
That somebody in the FBI can't stand the thought of her being boss for 4-8 years? Something else? I have no clue.


Yes- I can imagine State having a say that the diplomatic cost of droning the guy in the historic mosque or crowded bazzar outweighs the military/political benefit.

Well, the longer I live the less I think we should be using the CIA, because the things they do have consequences. Another Cold War relic.

[Spacy]

* The FBI has leaked that Hillary was approving drone strikes on her unsecured system.
 

I didn't think Secretary of State had that authority in the chain of command?

Official, no.  Unofficial, ya, since Kennedy and vietnam.  Prez, VP, Sec State, then Sec Def, IIRC for authorizing military action.  Clinton as prez specifically didn't allow Sec Def, and instead had homeland security, which caused a bit of friction.  Prez has to sleep sometime, and has to been in meetings that cannot be interrupted but there is a time critical action needed... that sort of thing. 

[Rusty Edge]

According to MSNBC, [Sleezebag] has just pulled the press credentials of The Washington Post. He tweeted that they are lying about him.

[Buster's Uncle]

How can you tell when the PIG is lying?

[Spacy]

Let's be honest.  Anybody from Washington is probably not too familiar with the truth....

[Buster's Uncle]

False dichotomy.

[Rusty Edge]

Gleanings-

* Johnson is at only 6% in his latest poll. Huh? He has been trending up his media exposure was strong until yesterday, and his last few polls have been in the double digits. The devil is in the details..

[Sleezebag]-36%
Clinton- 39%
Johnson- 6%
Stein-4%
Stay Home- 5%
Undecided-9%

So with 2 men, 2 women, and 2 other options can we say that those votes for Johnson are solid?

* Maybe this is what I forgot...

Donald [Sleezebag] on Politifact    # investigated claims ( % of total )

True
3 (2%)
 
Mostly True
11 (7%)
 
Half True
24 (15%)
 
Mostly False
25 (16%)
 
False
64 (41%)
 
Pants on Fire
30 (19%)

Hillary for comparison

True
47 (22%)
 
Mostly True
58 (28%)
 
Half True
45 (22%)
 
Mostly False
32 (15%)

False
24 (11%)
 
Pants on Fire
3 (1%)

Bernie for comparison. Well, maybe this doesn't differentiate between deceptions and delusions.

True
14 (14%)

Mostly True
38 (38%)
 
Half True
19 (19%)
 
Mostly False
18 (18%)
 
False
12 (12%)
---------

* More about money. [Sleezebag] is running low. The Koch Brothers turned him down, ( and I mentioned that they withdrew support for this year's GOP convention. ) and he hasn't done the usual things a Republican presumptive nominee does.

I don't know what this means. It could be [Sleezebag] being cheap. Maybe he's waiting for the GOP money in August. Maybe he really is trying to destroy the GOP from within. Normally it's a collaborative effort, raising money together, appearing together.  I'm sensing a "I took over this party, and now it exists to serve me "vibe , rather than a team captain who wants to win for everybody. After all, the longer his coattails, the more likely he is to enact his agenda. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement, politics.

[Rusty Edge]

Johnson seems to be taking a couple of days off from the campaign trail after a non-stop media blitz before and after the Memorial Day convention. He's been quiet since his statements about not wanting to politicize the tragedy.

Well, if he refuses to do that, it doesn't stop the Libertarian Party National Chairman from doing so.
For those of you not familiar with the party/philosophy and it's principles, the most basic one is
Non- aggression. Not by governments or individuals.

 Most freedoms are traded away in hope of security. Probably because most people aren't Golden Rule types when nobody's looking.  ( most Libertarians won't admit that )

---------------------------

For immediate release
 June 13, 2016

In wake of Orlando shooting, Libertarian Party calls for
 end to ‘gun-free’ zones

Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee, issued the following statement today:




Despite the horrific loss of life and the dozens more injured by a spiteful, deranged shooter in Orlando yesterday, the forces of hate are losing the battle against the vast majority of peaceful individuals who want social tolerance. But Americans remain at risk of more mass shootings.

Hundreds of individuals from all backgrounds lined up in the Florida heat for hours to give blood to the victims of this tragedy. Millions of Americans nationwide share the grief of this moment and express their sympathy in vigils and social media.  The outpouring of love and support from caring people is what truly makes America great.

Government can neither protect us from people who hate, nor can it provide the love and support of people who, by nature, care for their fellow man. But government can greatly reduce the likelihood of mass shootings by getting out of the way of people who want to defend themselves and others.

Without missing a beat, old party politicians recycled their calls for more failed and deadly policies.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald [Sleezebag] demonizes Muslims, failing to distinguish hateful and mentally ill individuals from the millions of peaceful Muslims who strongly condemn acts of violence.

Democrat Barack Obama calls for more deadly restrictions and prohibitions on the rights of peaceful, responsible gun owners to stop shooters and minimize their impact.

The Libertarian Party is the only political party calling for sensible, serious policy change that would reduce the frequency of mass shootings as well as minimize the damage they do.

Virtually all mass shootings happen in “gun-free” zones.  Regardless of the ideology of the shooter or the type of weapons used, the common link is that the event occurs where responsible gun owners are prohibited from carrying arms for self-defense. 
• The Pulse nightclub was a “gun-free” zone.
• The Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California was a “gun-free” zone.
• The Bataclan nightclub in Paris was a “gun-free” zone.
• The schools in Newtown, Connecticut and Columbine, Colorado were “gun-free” zones.
• Fort Hood was a “gun-free” zone.

In each of these mass killings, the government prohibited people from exercising their life-saving right to self-defense.

Government-mandated “gun-free” zones disarm those who want to defend themselves and their loved ones.

“Gun-free” zones create killing fields for mass murderers who, by definition, do not care what the law says.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right.  Every person has a right to defend herself and her loved ones against someone who would do them harm.  When government takes away the right of self-defense, it is violating a fundamental human right and endangering its citizens.

The choice of whether and how to defend oneself is a profoundly personal one.  The government should not mandate that every American carry a gun for personal self-defense, nor should it mandate that every American must rely on police for protection. 

The beauty of the right to self-defense is that it keeps the criminals guessing as to who has a gun and who does not. This deters mass shooters from even trying.

The Libertarian Party supports freedom of choice, and calls for the government to stop denying our human rights.

Our thoughts, prayers, and love go out to the friends and families of those slain or harmed in Orlando.  We owe it to them, and to all citizens, to do what we can to stop tragedies like this in the future.

How many more mass shootings will occur before we demand that our government stop violating our fundamental human right to self-defense?

No more government-mandated “gun-free” zones.  No more government-created killing fields where madmen can slay innocent people.

No more!


*****

Sorry Dude, I disagree.

 I have noticed that going back as far as the 1990s that gun-fee zones seem to be the likely place for shootings. Aside from the Chris Kyle murder, these kind of things seldom happen at gun clubs and police stations.

Disney has some serious security. I've been next to the range when the Orlando police department was practicing with machine guns, they practice hard. I'll skip the details, but I don't worry about stuff when I'm in The World. I once read that "any man under your power is under your protection, too." That sounds Medieval, but I often think of it in terms of employment, and it has stuck with me most of my life. Aside from College campuses, and some sporting events, most of these zones have little or no on site security.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is a theory.
"Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns" is too often the case.

I don't want to do away with gun free zones, but I think if you establish one, you need to offer on site security. Any man under your power is also under your protection.

That's hardly a cure-all. Why? Because terrorists can find other ways, like guiding a plane or truck full of combustibles into a building. There are lots of issues in the last one- hate, craziness, terrorism, firearms, intelligence, security. Unless and until we take a more comprehensive approach, there will be more of them.

[Dale]

John Howard, a conservative PM enacted strict gun control laws in 1996.

We have not had a mass shooting since.

Gun control works.

Full stop.

No other argument is valid.

[Unorthodox]

2 weeks ago:

! No longer available

I'm all for open carry and concealed carry, but there's some seriously broken laws with regards to gun ownership, and that Libertarian party stance is part of the problem.  Or just positioning for NRA votes. 

[Rusty Edge]

Today's gleanings-

* They are in the process of counting millions of mail-in and provisional ballots in California. 3 counties and something like 9 super-delegates have flipped to Bernie so far. He could actually win it.

* Mitt Romney has had more good things to say about Bill Weld, and is moving closer to saying he'll vote for Johnson. I think that would give him a good shot at winning a Mountain time zone state, seeing as how they are Mormon heavy and know religious prejudice when they hear it from The Leader.

* Obama is mad at [Sleezebag] for his remarks about Orlando and suggesting Obama allows terrorist attacks.

* Oh. Apparently one of the Saudi royal family was boasting that it contributed 20% of Hillary's campaign money. Since this is illegal, I guess the original article was pulled. Maybe the real journalists from the Washington Post banned by [Sleezebag] could look into this. -

You know what? it implicates the Republicans, too. I'll copy it.

[Rusty Edge]

http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2016/06/14/760158/story.html

Saudi Arabia Has Funded 20% Of Hillary's Presidential Campaign


.June 14, 2016 - 4:25 PM.

AhlulBayt News Agency - Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly said Saudi has enthusiastically funded Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next president of the United States, according to a report published by Jordan’s official news agency.

The Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate’s campaign.

The report was later deleted and the news agency has not responded to requests for comment.

It is illegal in the United States for foreign countries to try to influence the outcome of elections by funding candidates.

The Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs has re-published the original Arabic Petra report, which quoted Prince Mohammed as having said Saudi Arabia had provided with “full enthusiasm” an undisclosed amount of money to Clinton.

“Saudi Arabia always has sponsored both Republican and Democratic Party of America and in America current election also provide with full enthusiasm 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s election even though some events in the country don’t have a positive look to support the king of a woman (sic) for presidency,” the report quoted Prince Mohammed as having said.

The US Federal Election commission reports that over the past two years Clinton has raised a little more than $211.78m. Twenty percent of this sum is $42.35m.

The report was published on the eve of Prince Mohammed making an official visit to the United States.

The Saudi Press Agency reported on Monday that the senior royal was due to fly to Washington where he will meet officials to discuss US-Saudi ties.

He will remain in the American capital until 16 June, when he will travel to New York for meetings with financial companies, the Saudi Gazette reported.

Prince Mohammed will discuss regional issues with American officials, and he will hold talks with the financial companies about his vision for diversifying Saudi Arabia’s economy away from oil dependency.

Links between Saudi Arabia and the Clinton family, including with Hillary’s campaign, are well reported.

In 2008, it was revealed that the Gulf kingdom had donated between $10m and $25m to the Clinton Foundation, a charity set up by Hillary’s husband and former US President Bill Clinton.

Last year the Centre for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court paid public relations firm the Podesta Group $200,000 for a month-long project to provide “public relations services”.

The Podesta Group was founded in 1988 by brothers John and Tony Podesta. John Podesta is the chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next US president.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

[Unorthodox]

* Mitt Romney has had more good things to say about Bill Weld, and is moving closer to saying he'll vote for Johnson. I think that would give him a good shot at winning a Mountain time zone state, seeing as how they are Mormon heavy and know religious prejudice when they hear it from The Leader.

Maybe not "officially endorsed" but he's already said he'd likely vote for Johnson on the local news weeks ago.  If that didn't bump him much then, I don't know that an official endorsement will do much more now. 

[Rusty Edge]

The statements I've read from Mitt have been carefully parsed. More along the lines of considering Johnson, that he'd have to study his platform, that if Weld were at the top it would be a done deal.

But if Mitt's local statements are less nuanced, it could explain why Johnson polled at 16% in Utah recently.

As for the gun issue, the party is emphatic. They are adamant Bill of Rights people, more than any party I've ever seen. Bill Weld barely got approved because although a hunter, he once supported an assault rifle ban. They insisted on 2nd Amendment pledges. If they broke faith  2 weeks after securing the nomination, I could easily see state parties failing to assist in ballot access... " Oh darn. Did we get your name wrong? File late? Forget to get it notarized? The whole thing musta slipped my mind when you forgot you were a Libertarian."