No Evan McMullin is not a “sane alternative”

Much of what is said here applies to other also-rans

imageedit_1_2091078445Erick Erickson (formerly of Red State now of Resurgent) refers to fifth-party presidential hopeful Evan McMullin  as the “sane alternative” to Trump and Hillary. Erickson in his political analysis is certifiable.

Both Erickson and Red State used to have some cache with me to the extent that if their stable of writers posted something — I considered it respectably objective. Now, when it comes to Trump, most are as cartoonish as they accuse Trump of being.  Oh they remain objective, as objective as Snidley Whiplash towards anything Dudley Do-Right has to say, just no longer respectable in their chauvinistic neverTrumpism.

Now some such neverTrumpists* claim a candidate in McMullin even if he is not particularly conservative by their previous standards.  The ridiculousness of their analysis is in gaga land.

To be sure there are other web sites so sycophantic in their support of Trump, so  vociferous, so strident towards any challenge to him as to deserve to be always taken with a passel of salt as regards him. But this post is about Erickson’s political analysis and McMullan.

Consider this excerpt of Erickson’s comments which we will parse  following their presentation as a unified statement:

The reality is Evan McMullin’s candidacy is a long shot. His best shot is winning a few states to throw the race to the House of Representatives where, though he may not get the Presidency, he might ensure neither Trump nor Hillary get it. To do this he would have to win a few blue states, which though difficult is not impossible. Surprisingly, he is already beginning to register in polls in red states like Utah and purple states like Virginia.

Frankly, Evan McMullin may actually serve a more important role in 2016.

Though he may not win, he might at least provide disaffected conservatives an excuse to show up and vote down ballot. Saving the Senate and House of Representatives from the Democrats has to be a priority for conservatives, but many are so disgusted by 2016 that they will not even show up in November.

The reality is Evan McMullin’s candidacy is a long shot. 

  • Referring to “reality” as encompassing even “long shot” as regards McMullin is no sign of respect to reality. Referring to McMullin’s “long shot” chances of actually winning the presidency as an understatement would be an injustice to any future use of the term impossible.

His best shot is winning a few states to throw the race to the House of Representatives where, though he may not get the Presidency, he might ensure neither Trump nor Hillary get it.

  • Dear Erick, are you seriously contending he can win “a few states” and that  the putatively majority Republican House will be unified to give it to someone other than the nominee of the Republican Party? Throwing it to the House because of the permutations of the Electoral College  does not necessarily mean Trump got less popular votes or less electoral votes than Hillary. Why would a Republican House be constrained to give it to other than the Republican nominee, sense to play on an Obamanism, they won – and are in charge?

he might ensure neither Trump nor Hillary get it.

  • This goal of Trump not getting the presidency is exposed in much of Erickson’s writing to the extent it seems to eclipse everything, the risk of Hillary “getting it” is of little consequence to him.

To do this he would have to win a few blue states, which though difficult is not impossible.

  • Please refer to the essence of our first bullet point

Surprisingly, he is already beginning to register in polls in red states like Utah and purple states like Virginia.

  • Register and win are vastly different unless one is content to be spoiler of Trump and “risk” install Hillary.  But Morman McMullin in the latest polling is losing numbers in Utah (now at 9% down from a previous poll) and is at 3% in Virginia.  And his showing in other states is abysmal for him.

Frankly, Evan McMullin may actually serve a more important role in 2016. Though he may not win, he might at least provide disaffected conservatives an excuse to show up and vote down ballot. Saving the Senate and House of Representatives from the Democrats has to be a priority for conservatives, but many are so disgusted by 2016 that they will not even show up in November.

  • Now doesn’t this say something rich about what Erickson thinks of his followers or any so with it as to be “neverTrump? ! They are too stupid to know that there are other races to show up and vote in.    So discerning to see that Trump is anathema but otherwise not discerning enough to show up and vote other races.   Absolutely incredible.

Perusing McMullin’s campaign web site we see McMullin is no Ted Cruz or great conservative, not on life (a vague paragraph is all McMullin can muster) , not on marriage (not an issue he will bother with) , not on immigration (his web site is silent on birthright citizenship).

More to be added

R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

More of Hillary

From over the transom










How many pot-holders went into that creation she is wearing. Think of all the poor folks with scalded hands.

How many pot-holders went into that creation she is wearing. Think of all the poor folks with scalded h





Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Comey serves the Obamacrat / Clintonista justice system

getpart-6It appears that Rev. Wright’s fondest dream has been realized…G-d has damned America! Like watching a train wreck . . .

  1. see the extensive record of blatant criminal behavior Cheryl Mills is guilty of but never touched by the justice system,
  2. the disgraceful conduct of James Comey and the utter shame the FBI has descended into under his “leadership,
  3. the certainty that this lawlessness will continue, even accelerate, with Democrats/liberals present in any branch of our government in any numbers

Paul Sperry writes at the New York Post  (excerpts)
Why did feds grant immunity to Hillary’s ‘highly improper’ aide? 

If anyone would know Hillary consigliere Cheryl Mills’ reputation for obstructing investigations, it’s FBI Director James Comey. He complained about her lack of cooperation while probing Clinton scandals in the 1990s. Yet he agreed to give Mills immunity from prosecution in his probe of Hillary’s illegal e-mails as secretary of state, where Mills was chief of staff. 

Perry goes on to specify Mills obstructionism protecting Hillary in the 1990’s. The assortment is extensive, the demeanor brazen, impudent, and defiant. The implications and the response of Republicans leadership  and “professionals’ like Comey were pathetic, undermining the rule of law.

Fast-forward to Hillary’s tenure as secretary. In October 2012, Mills sorted through key Benghazi documents and decided which to withhold from a review board. She also leaned on witnesses. Deputy ambassador to Libya Gregory Hicks testified before Congress in 2013 that Mills told him in an angry phone call to stop cooperating with investigators.

The FBI chief was fully aware of Mills’ M.O. when he launched his investigation. Yet even after discovering she was in the middle of everything improper, if not illegal, he treated her with kid gloves.

Comey knew it was Mills who had Hillary’s e-mails moved off her private unsecured server and onto laptops, where she decided which ones were government-related and OK for public release and which were “personal.” He knew it was Mills who shredded the e-mails that were printed out and who had the rest of the 31,000 e-mails deleted, and then had the laptops bleached clean.

And he knew it was Mills who told the Denver tech who maintained the server to stop retaining her e-mails and to delete Hillary’s archived e-mails, all of which the tech dutifully performed after Congress subpoenaed them and ordered them preserved.

Even so, Comey agreed to grant Mills immunity in exchange for her cooperation in the investigation. He also agreed to ground rules that left some lines of inquiry off-limits.


Rather, it would be more productive to grill Comey under the klieg lights. Why did he give a key suspect who orchestrated the destruction of government records immunity as a witness? Why didn’t he demand prosecutors convene a grand jury to question Mills under oath? Was he pressured by the attorney general?

Sweating Mills could have cracked the case wide open. No one would have ever let H.R. Haldeman get away with editing the Nixon tapes. Why would the FBI director let Hillary’s chief of staff get away with deleting her e-mails?


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

What would “Election 2016” be without one more word about Ted Cruz?

CEO, President, Managing Editor, CFO, Big Kahuna of Veritaspac, my friend, Roger, is correct when he wrote that I had lost my bet that Ted Cruz would not support/endorse the GOP presidential nominee. But to quote Lady Hillary MacBeth (named by some, most aptly, for “one of Shakespeare’s most famous and frightening female characters”), “what difference, at this point, does it make”.

And now, he has…sorta. We’ll take it but it is not worth a whole lot at this stage of the game. In fact, the whole episode is probably to the Senator’s detriment. Mr. Cruz did alienate a large number of his primary campaign supporters, myself included. After all, he was among the candidates for the nomination to make the famous “pledge” to support whomever the eventual nominee would be. That was a practical thing to do…if indeed you intended to keep such a pledge.

But, that wasn’t Ted’s biggest mistake. It was a tough campaign, dominated by an unorthodox aspirant who was not likely, after it was all said and done, to be voted “Mr. Congeniality”. Cruz took a verbal beating from Mr. Trump. Some of the stuff was nasty. Understandable that there would be hard feelings on the part of the Senator in the immediate aftermath of the campaign. (In my own case, “hard feelings” would not begin to describe my reactions; but then, that’s just one of a few hundred other reasons I would not run for political office).

Most of us understood that it would take a while to get over the slings and arrows suffered by the Texan. But then,with a clear winner of the nomination, in a must -win contest for the fate of the nation, indeed, the entire world, the GOP convention was the place to put aside the animosity and honor the pledge and come out with a strong endorsement.

Unfortunately, Heidi forgot to pack Ted’s “big boy” pants.

Unlike Roger, I thought, as I, and I believe, most attendees and conservatives across the land concluded, he needed to make a much more definitive statement in support of the nominee than his sly, disingenuous, surprisingly un-artful remarks.

But, now, by delaying until the impact is marginal if any, Cruz makes his “support” public. Now, he has even lost Glenn Beck (horrors!).

All the reasons he now gives for why he’ll vote for Trump, were no less universally known and understood in July.

And interestingly, his belated declaration come as it becomes clear that he faces a genuine challenge to retain his seat in the Senate.

I still believe that Ted Cruz is a vital force for conservatism and that he has much more yet to accomplish on the national stage for the good of America.

So I wish him well and sincerely hope that voters return him to the Senate, but perhaps more so that President Trump chooses him for Supreme Court Justice.

Roger, your dollar is in the mail.       DLH

Not an altogether surprising analysis from a Texas Cruz critic  —

Ted Cruz Caves   Why he will come to regret his endorsement of Donald Trump’s presidential bid.     (excerpt)

Ted Cruz wants, above all else, to be president. He’s spent years working and strategically plotting toward achieving that goal. After endorsing Donald Trump today, Cruz’s chances of becoming president have, it seems to me, nearly evaporated.


At the same time, I’m aware that even before today’s news, it was tricky to persuade anyone to consider giving Cruz the benefit of the doubt about anything—and after today, it will be impossible. Either his endorsement is a pack of lies, or his speech at the RNC was: they can’t both be true. And though it’s possible that “Lyin’ Ted” might still one day become president, the odds, in my view, are now vanishingly narrow. We’ve all heard it a million times: “Everyone hates Ted Cruz.” And now he’s given this faceless “everyone” plenty of reason to do so.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

So why riot in Charlotte and not Tulsa?

Two recent police shootings of black men, both claimed to be wrongful.

One by a Black cop in Charlotte, of a black man with an extensive record. Other cops on the scene were black.

The other was in Tulsa involving a white cop shooting a black man.

The Charlotte incident produced riots even though racism can not credibly be maintained.

The Tulsa incident  resulted in a charge against the cop,  so there was some at least superficial “reason” for objection but there was no riot.   Hmmmmm

North Carolina is a swing state this election with a 21% black population that has not been deemed sufficiently enthusiastic about Hillary.  Perhaps a need to gin up the racism meme?

Oklahoma is unalterably red this go-around.  What good would rioting do???

R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Comey Cozey with Clinton Foundation

getpart-5Two weeks old now but an astounding revelation to me. Many of you may have been aware.  Has Congress been aware, and to what effect?   DK sends a Patrick Howley  Breitbart link:  (excerpted by us — bold emphasis ours)

Exposed: FBI Director James Comey’s Clinton Foundation Connection

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe.

These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.

Lockheed Martin

When President Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.

But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year.


According to records, Lockheed Martin is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech in 2010.

In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the Hillary Clinton State Department.

HSBC Holdings

In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings.

“Mr. Comey’s appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting,” according to HSBC company records.

HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. For instance, HSBC Holdings has partnered with Deutsche Bank through the Clinton Foundation to “retrofit 1,500 to 2,500 housing units, primarily in the low- to moderate-income sector” in “New York City.”


Who Is Peter Comey?

When our source called the Chinatown offices of D.C. law firm DLA Piper and asked for “Peter Comey,” a receptionist immediately put him through to Comey’s direct line. But Peter Comey is not featured on the DLA Piper website.

Peter Comey serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper. James Comey was not questioned about his relationship with Peter Comey in his confirmation hearing.

DLA Piper is the firm that performed the independent audit of the Clinton Foundation in November during Clinton-World’s first big push to put the email scandal behind them. DLA Piper’s employees taken as a whole represent a major Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign donation bloc and Clinton Foundation donation base.

DLA Piper ranks #5 on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list, just ahead of Goldman Sachs.

And here is another thing: Peter Comey has a mortgage on his house that is owned by his brother James Comey, the FBI director.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 2 Comments

Comey derelict in face of clear security breaches

This is of a certain world class tilt — the administrations of Kim Jung Un and the other Hussein, — Saddam — come to mind.



Politico: Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal 

No kidding!? Our president? . . .

pseu•do•nym (ˈsud n ɪm)  n.  a fictitious name used by an author to conceal his or her identity; pen name.

Obama’s approval rating will go through the ceiling on this one! We can see that Huma Abedin was impressed. Not trying to be facetious.

From the Politico article:

President Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday.

The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents from its investigation into Clinton’s private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

The 189 pages the bureau released includes interviews with some of Clinton’s closest aides, such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials; and even Marcel Lazar, better known as the Romanian hacker “Guccifer.”

In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

“Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?'” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

From The Hill

“Abedin also told the FBI that Clinton’s team had to inform the White House that she was changing her email address so that the president could receive messages from her.

No intent here Mr Comey?  . . . no lies to the public by Obama and Hillary of their ignorance about the use of email?

Obama has previously been exposed to be a liar about not having known about Clinton’s private e-mail server. Now it is also exposed that he must have been aware that she (and he) were using it to avoid detection and that their correspondence was potentially discoverable and a security risk — why else a pseudonym?? 


DLH  with R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Ted Cruz says he will vote for Trump, Good! Illustrious Senior Editor DLH owes me a dollar, or at least 50 cents.  The dollar was a bet he good-naturedly accepted on whether Ted Cruz would support (or was it “endorse”) Donald Trump.  Having both been Cruz supporters in the primary, both Don and I resigned ourselves to Trump but with me kicking and screaming until the extreme threat of Hillary overcame my reservations and “irritations,” albeit in short enough order.   Some weeks ago I said Cruz would come out for Trump before voting started (that’s my story) and Don took the bet (he very much wanted Cruz to do so and was disappointed with each passing day that he had not clearly done so).

Speaking for myself  I did not think it was essential for Cruz to say or do more than he did during and immediately after the RNC convention. Don thought it was essential to maintain Cruz’s credibility to support Trump but especially because it is the right thing to do given the clear and present danger.  Perhaps I parsed Cruz words more than were clear on the day after,  but I took them as a tacit call for support of the nominee. Give a guy a break after all that was said during the primary was my emotion. I agreed with Cruz that  “the pledge” presumes some things, it is not politically unconditional, as Trump himself had conditions – as in “fair treatment.” I have not changed on that, but I came to agree with Don that Cruz should support Trump.  There is no alternative.       R Mall

Statement of Ted Cruz

This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.

In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.

Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.

Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.

Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.

Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.

Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.

Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.

These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.

If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.

My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.

We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.

Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.

The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.

Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.

A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

McConnell acceding to Internet giveaway?

Sure some business groups want to turn it over to the UN.  We wonder what “incentives,” or should we say “good will gestures” have been required of them by certain countries in order to do business in their borders?

We hope this epitaph is premature — read on, posted in its entirety with permission from NetRightDaily.

Why the free and open Internet had to die

By Robert Romano

“We Democrats cannot vote for that substitute and urge others to vote against it.”

That was Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Barbara Mikulsprotecttheinternet2ki (D-Md.) explaining in no uncertain terms that the proposed continuing resolution by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is dead on arrival.

The unexpected turn of events came as negotiations broke down between McConnell and his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

I write “unexpected” because the legislation McConnell is touting as a compromise was apparently not even agreed to by Reid. It’s a Republican bill — that funds Democrat priorities.

And, it strips out language that would have prevented the transition of U.S. oversight of the Internet’s domain name system to foreign powers and multinational corporations at the end of the month, risking censorship by an unaccountable Internet global monopoly — with no First Amendment federal court remedy once out from under the U.S. government contract..

Meaning, McConnell is singularly responsible for everything in the legislation, including surrendering the Internet. He could have put whatever he wanted into the bill, including the language blocking the Internet giveaway. He opted not to.

Luckily, what he has on the floor now might not even pass. He has no idea what Reid will do when it goes to the floor Monday for a vote.

In other words, it’s amateur hour. McConnell ceded U.S. oversight over the Internet — in exchange for nothing. They got nothing.

Well almost nothing. You know what we’re hearing? Republicans might have kept language out that would have allowed the Export Import Bank to meet and conduct business at a lower quorum requirement. And they kept out funding for Flint, Michigan’s water crisis — which will probably pass next week anyway.

So they delayed inevitable meetings by the Ex-Im Bank to make loans pending another appointment to its board of directors in the next few months, and they slowed down passage of funding on Flint by a few days.

We ask you: Was that worth surrendering U.S. oversight of the free and open Internet we all use and depend on?

You know what we’re also hearing? That Senate leaders are blaming Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for elevating the issue and using their platforms to communicate to their supporters about it. Oh, the horror.

As negotiations broke down, Reid told reporters Sept. 22 that Trump’s support made the rider a non-starter: “It’s obvious to me that Trump, [who] wants the federal government out of everything, suddenly now wants the government in something. It’s his issue now, I don’t think it’s going to sell well in my caucus.”

So, Reid bluffed and told McConnell that Democrats would shut down the government if Republicans tried to block the surrender of the Internet to the international community — because Donald Trump said something about it.

And McConnell believed him, stripped the language out all by himself — without consulting with Reid — and put it on the Senate floor.

Can you believe this?

The Internet had to be given away because blocking the surrender was simply too popular, garnering the support of the GOP standard bearer, Trump, and oh gee, that was just too much exposure.

Never mind the fact that Trump’s statement actually helped to begin the process of reconciliation between Trump and Cruz after a bitter primary battle, helping to unify Republicans for the elections in November. A legislative victory by McConnell could have had Republicans nationwide saluting and feeling inspired to keep the Senate majority, to keep the Internet free and open.

Now? They’re cursing the day we ever won the Senate majority and put McConnell in charge.

In a statement, Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning lamented McConnell’s surrender: “It is truly ironic that an issue which unifies the GOP, can be tossed aside because the minority in the Senate threatens to shut down the government… [T]he ultimate conclusion is that the GOP wields far more power when the Democrats control the Senate and they are forced to unify around conservative principles for political campaign purposes. The current Majority in Name Only is hardly worth defending when the Democrats and the corporatists win every battle.”

Perhaps McConnell also blames grassroots Americans who have been phoning their representatives and writing letters on this issue for 2-and-a-half years to stop the Internet surrender.

Or the Wall Street Journal’s L. Gordon Crovitz for writing too many columns about it.

Or Americans for Limited Government for filing too many Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests demanding the Commerce Department’s legal analysis of the authority to perform the transfer. Or demanding via FOIA analysis of antitrust issues to do with creating the global Internet monopoly in ICANN — which the Commerce Department still has not found any responsive documents for, nor have they responded to Congressional demands for the analysis.

You see, really, it’s our fault. For advocating the issue. We simply raised its profile too high. If only we all had kept quiet, Congress would have addressed this issue.

Oh wait, no they wouldn’t have.

In reality, it’s McConnell’s fault. For unilaterally stripping out the language blocking the Internet transfer, without apparently checking with anyone. Language his entire conference and both major Republican presidential candidates supported, which would have protected the vital Internet freedoms of each and every American. Because he did not know how to fight and win this issue, and when he unilaterally surrendered, blamed those who were on the outside trying to help.

Fortunately, all is not lost. McConnell has scheduled a vote for Monday, but already he is losing supporters for his precious continuing resolution. Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) have withdrawn support because it did not address the Export Import Bank’s quorum issues.

Which about that. If what it takes to save the free and open Internet for another fiscal year and kick this into the next administration so a new president can have a look is to lower the quorum requirements for the Ex-Im Bank, you lower the quorum requirements for the Ex-Im Bank. That’s not even a choice. Include funding for Flint, Michigan’s water supply in a bill that already spends hundreds of billions of dollars when similar legislation might pass the House next week anyway? Whatever.

The thing is, those issues however important (or unimportant, depending on your perspective) could also be dealt with again next year. Whereas once U.S. oversight of the Internet is relinquished — creating an unaccountable global monopoly over the Internet’s domain name system — we will never get it back. We hope we’re wrong, but the risks are there.

And we’ll know who to blame. Senate Republicans, who refused to fight and, in this case, compromise to get something done on behalf of the American people.

If House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has any sense he’ll immediately write his own continuing resolution, defund the Internet surrender — for the entire year, not this 3-month nonsense, like anyone wants to do this all over again in December — and send it to the Senate for consideration.

Or, Ryan can join McConnell’s failure and force his own conference to vote for an unpopular, ill-conceived continuing resolution that surrenders U.S. oversight of the Internet.

Because, make no mistake, a vote for the continuing resolution is a vote for surrendering the free and open Internet to foreign powers and multinational corporations. Whoever votes yes will share the blame. And the shame — when one day it goes against U.S. interests, and results in censorship, a global Internet tax and other evils.

Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

One of Hillary’s finest?

This works well as a neverHillary spot, even if not her intention.  Where have I seen this gal before? Thanks to TN for the forward — not near enough shrill in my day up to that point.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment