Thursday, October 8, 2015


Washington attorney Shannen Coffin updates his running commentary on Madam Hillary’s email scandal in the NR column “Hillary knew the dangers of private email but didn’t let that stop her.” Taking a look at yesterday’s tranche of emails released by the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act, and considering the major phishing scheme discussed in them, Shannen writes:
Clinton and her senior staff were well aware of the security risks posed by the widespread use of personal e-mail during her tenure. They understood the target of opportunity they would present if that use were broadcast. This wouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone familiar with State Department regulations at the time, which required that the “normal day-to-day” business of the department be conducted on official e-mail servers. Those official servers, the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual states, have “the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.” Clinton and her senior staff violated these regulations as a matter of convenience and with apparent regularity.
Yet the State Department did not tolerate the same personal e-mail practices among career employees. A mere three weeks after this e-mail exchange [set forth earlier in the column], a cable signed by Hillary Clinton went out to diplomatic and consular officials serving overseas, alerting them to the security risks brought to light by the Gmail hack and warning those officials to “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.” A year later, Mrs. Clinton accepted the resignation of the U.S. ambassador to Kenya after an inspector-general report criticized the ambassador for using commercial e-mail systems to conduct official business.
Private e-mail for me, but not for thee…
Whole thing here.


Yesterday, I discussed the possibility that the Democratic party may experience a crack-up as a result of slavish adherence to the demands of environmentalists, backed by the party’s upscale, elitist wing. The hard-left environmentalist agenda is likely to alienate members of the working class, a traditional Democratic constituency. We may be seeing the beginning of this process with the dispute over the Keystone XLpipeline.
The modern Democratic party depends not just on its elitist wing, but also on minority groups, especially African-Americans. This creates the potential for a crack-up over issues relating to crime and punishment.
David Frum reminds us that “it was crime more than any other single issue that drove blue-collar voters in the industrial states from the party of Truman and Johnson to the party of Nixon and Reagan.” Only when Bill Clinton backed the death penalty (unlike Michael Dukakis), endorsed longer sentences, and funded local police forces, did this issue begin to lose its sting.
And only when, due in part those longer sentences and better funded police forces, the crime rate fell dramatically, did the issue basically disappear from national politics.
Frum observes that “emancipating Americans from the fear of crime emancipated Democrats from the need to position themselves against crime.” But now that the crime rate is rising in some areas– due in part, most likely, to reduced incarceration and less intrusive policing — the Democrats may not be emancipated much longer.
Neither, though, will they feel free to return to the tough on crime stances of Bill Clinton. Why? Because, as Frum explains, the party is highly dependent on black votes and thus constrained to accept the de-incarceration, de-policing agenda of groups like Black Lives Matter.
Thus, the issue of “law and order” (as we used to call it) has the potential to crack open the Democrats’ coalition. That potential is illustrated by polling data cited by Frum:
A 2014 Los Angeles Times survey asked Californians whether local police were too aggressive and posed more of a threat than anything else: 42 percent of black voters said yes, as against 28 percent of Latinos, 21 percent of Asians, and 11 percent of whites. Only 12 percent of whites and 11 percent of Asians could recall a time in the past year when police had treated them unfairly as against 26 percent of blacks.
Nationwide, over 80 percent of white millennials believe that crime remains a greater threat than police misconduct.
There is one bit of good news on this front for Dems, however. The Republican party may bail them out by softening its position on crime. For at least the past year, important Republicans have been flirting with the idea of bipartisan criminal justice reform. Unless they are careful, the GOP could become complicit in reversing the tremendous success the nation achieved in slashing the crime rate and making our streets safe.
Tomorrow, reportedly, nine Senators will introduce a bipartisan sentencing reform bill. The nine are Sens. Grassley, Cornyn, Graham, Lee, Leahy, Durbin, Schumer, Whitehouse, and Booker. Some of these names are pretty scary.
Bill Otis hears that the bill will contain some elements of “back-end” reform (a kind of watered-down return of parole), a somewhat expanded “safety valve” for existing mandatory minimums, and a scattering of new mandatory minimums. So perhaps we shouldn’t be alarmed. We’ll see.
But why, I wonder, are the Republicans working with the Democrats on this issue at all? Why not stick with the existing legislation that has worked so well and let the Democrats contend with their coming crack-up unassisted?

Ben Carson Is Right — Charge Attackers, Don’t Shelter in Place

Ben Carson Is Right — Charge Attackers, Don’t Shelter in Place
By David French 

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Fiorina Both Refreshing and Terrifying to Feminists

Fiorina Both Refreshing and Terrifying to Feminists
By Rich Lowry 

Democrats Used Reconciliation to Pass Obamacare. We Should Do the Same to Repeal It

Democrats Used Reconciliation to Pass Obamacare. We Should Do the Same to Repeal It
By Mike Lee & Mark Walker — September 30, 2015

Pope’s Meeting with Kim Davis Is a Huge Endorsement of Religious Freedom

Pope’s Meeting with Kim Davis Is a Huge Endorsement of Religious Freedom
By David French 

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Gun control and magical thinking

Add in an observation that simply notes that the monthly death toll from handguns in gun-control friendly Chicago is always a few dozen, and pro-gun control advocates come undone with online rage. The accusations — of being owned by the NRA, of insensitivity to human suffering, of indifference to truth — fly with abandon and not a little profanity.
The fact is that any reasonable gun control measure that could be argued persuasively to be effective in stopping a particular attack would have an immediate, indeed unstoppable, appeal to a public that weeps in grief at a seemingly endless line of atrocities. If President Obama or former Secretary of State Clinton could appear in public and state that X measure would have stopped Y shooting, then that X measure would soar in public support.
But they can't. So they don't. Instead they politicize these awful moments, speaking about straw men and magic, imaginary legislative solutions and now at least the president is willing to explicitly concede that he is doing exactly that. The New York Times editorialists lapse into a theater-style review of Republican "bromides" and the president's "understated fury," but devotes no space to detailing exactly what specific measure would have stopped exactly what specific murder spree.
Because there aren't any such measures save actual confiscation of weapons, which the president, candidate Clinton and even The New York Times lacks the courage to demand much less the ability to deliver via the constitutional amendment necessary to effect such a confiscation.
Everyone knows it is crazy to allow troubled losers to accumulate a dozen weapons while their family members say and do nothing as insanity brings them closer and closer to unleashing hell on hundreds of people. Everyone agrees that hate-filled extremists ought not to be able to buy weapons.
But no one has a plan on how to stop those specific purchases and prevent those specific massacres.The good news is that news organizations have figured out that publicity for the killers is a reward that has to be denied them. Manifestos cannot be published. Videotaped rants have to be consigned to the vertical file and the possession of the FBI's profilers.
But if a maniac can count on a command performance from the president within hours of his shooting spree, well then, that is quite the incentive, isn't it? Even this president, whose cluelessness on Syria is an indictment of any prescription he offers on any issue, should have figured out the worst thing he could do was dignify an anti-Christian psycho with a lecture scolding political opponents who include among their number millions and millions of Christians.
The president is himself a Christian, of course, but Thursday's tirade was anything but a display of righteous anger. It was just more political theater from a spent president with no more arguments to make, only slanders to hurl.
Hugh Hewitt is a nationally syndicated talk radio host, law professor at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law and author, most recently of The Queen: The Epic Ambition of Hillary and the Coming of a Second "Clinton Era." He posts daily at and is on Twitter @hughhewitt.

The Massacre in Oregon

The Massacre in Oregon

By The Editors 

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work – And it Wouldn’t Work in America

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work – And it Wouldn’t Work in America
By Mark Antonio Wright

The Simple Solution to High Rent in the Bay Area

The Simple Solution to High Rent in the Bay Area
By Thomas Sowell 

Don's Tuesday Column

THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   10/06/2015

   Gun sense, nonsense, lying liars

Well, our hectoring lecturer-in-chief, Emperor Obama, couldn’t wait for the bodies to cool or the blood to dry before politicizing the latest mass-murdering rampage in Roseburg, Oregon last Friday. The murderer had a black mother and had never been victimized for his mixed race background. Without racist, white cops—“acting stupidly”—or a “white Hispanic” neighborhood watchman, Obama was left with…guns.
It must be emphasized that the most proximate, relevant contributing factor to the carnage was the lunacy of “gun free zones.” Muslim haters-of-American-military chose a “gun free” strip mall recruiting storefront in Tennessee, and unarmed Army soldiers at Fort Hood. Theater shooters seek out “gun free” venues for their massacres.
This truism bears repeating: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away (6 minutes, in the Umpqua Community College, UCC, case on Friday). Among recent changes in gun laws tabulated in an article I saw, Texas was the only state to pass state-level legislation prohibiting any educational facility from denying law abiding gun owners their rights on school property. That’s very relevant to school shootings when you consider that, among the teachers, administrators, employees and (at colleges and universities) adult students, there will normally be former military, off-duty law enforcement or ordinary citizens possessed of CCW (concealed carry) permits—and trained in the use of their weapons.
We already know that heroes dwell, walk and—in the case of learning facilities—sit in classrooms and walk the campuses among us. As a teacher, who had survived the Nazis, proved back east, some will selflessly throw their bodies at such murderous nuts; in Roseburg, a former soldier took a number of bullets as he threw his body at the gunman. That teacher died; the former soldier lived. There would surely be dozens among UCC’s 20,000 full and part time students who could reliably and responsibly carry their own weapons for safety.
Oregon, rather than following Texas’ example, was the only state to pass a law further restricting law abiding, gun-owning citizens. They now impose one of the liberals’ favorite knee-jerk cure-alls for gun violence: “universal background checks” applying to all exchanges, even among family members and gun shows. Remember, the Roseburg murderer acquired his short and long guns legally, not having a criminal record or an adjudicated mental condition. Even the guns he acquired from a family member would not have been prohibited under that Oregon law for the same reasons.
However, one girl is possibly alive because of her premonition, her sense of dread prompting her to not attend class at UCC last Friday. There simply is no constitutional, common sense rationale for law-abiding citizens to be denied their God-given right to self-defense in any public space.
Suppose a young law-abiding person, with gun training, had a premonition of trouble on campus that day. A relative who legally owned a hand gun could not, under the new Oregon law, loan them a gun for the purpose of self-protection—not at Umpqua Community College, nor at their workplace, nor in their travels should a former boy or girl friend be stalking them with malintent. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with an armed good guy.
Given the now-verified targeting of self-professed Christians by the killer, “Will Roseburg Prompt a ‘National Conversation’ on Anti-Christian Bigotry?” by David French, raises essential issues. At the drop of a hat, the usual ideological buffoons, including Obama, decry racially motivated attacks (meaning, of course, black victims of white cops, not of other black gunmen). Media and political leftists are cocked and loaded (so to speak) to cry “Islamophobia” when Muslims are questioned; the Democrats’ phony “war on women” lives on.
Regarding our hypocrite-and-liar-in-chief, Obama misrepresented polls on gun control; he lied about the positions of 2nd Amendment/gun rights supporters; he endlessly conflates gun laws complied with by lawful citizens with those same laws flouted and ignored by criminals.
He completely misstated the results of gun-confiscation in Australia (the same leftist mouths that tell us we can’t deport 11 million illegal aliens now shamelessly want 300 million guns confiscated). For insight, read “Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work—And it Wouldn’t Work in America,” by Mark Antonio Wright. Neither “firearm suicides,” “non-firearm suicides,” nor “firearm homicide” rates have reflected the gun-seizing tactic of Australia’s law.
Obama’s despicable phoniness is revealed in “Obama: Never Let a Mass Shooting go to Waste!” “Obama and Guns: Then and Now,” and “Politicize This” (searchable by title and posted at under “gun rights”). We are apparently supposed to forget Obama’s 2008 insistence that he “will not take your shotgun…rifle…or handgun away.” We were liars to say “He wants to take your guns away.” Well, my lying eyes and ears witnessed Obama praising confiscation in “Great Britain and Australia” which have “been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings.” Yes, Obama, you want—by your own words—to take our guns away!

“So when he says it’s okay to ‘politicize’ these tragedies, he means it in full. When Obama engages in politics, he distorts the truth, demonizes his opponents, and seeks any other weapon that may be near to hand. He does this because he sees politics not as a realm for compromise, but the means by which he achieves what he wants, because what he wants is the only right and just thing.” (