Mar 13, 2015

#47Traitors or #47Patriots ?

Picture Credit
Almost immediately when word broke about Tom Cotton and the 46 other Senators signing a letter to clarify U.S. law to Iran a hashtag began to circulate:  #47Traitors.  However, it may have been more appropriate to have used the hashtag in this format: #47Patriots.  Since Cotton and his group did nothing different, despite what Bidden says, that others have done in the past.  In fact Cotton and his group is right so why should we call them traitors?  The word "Traitor" implies that these Senators have turned against America, when in fact they have only clarified American law to a regime that has broken just about every International Law there is in the last thirty plus years.   The fact is the word "Traitor" is harsh, wrong, and outright slander against these Senators.

First, let's look a little at history - a history that Joe Bidden seems to forget - the fact is Senators, Congressmen and Congresswomen, and even former Presidents have been going behind the backs of current Presidents to talk with foreign countries for years.  It's nothing new folks - by the way, where were all the "#traitors" during these times?  Here's a brief rundown of when our Democrat friends have gone behind the President to talk to foreign countries:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.
Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy.
House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.”  

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. 

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.”  (Citation)

Nancy Pelosi went to talk to Syri behind President Bush's back even provoking then Vice-President Dick Cheney to claim she did not have the right to negotiate with foreign countries (sound familiar?) (Citation)

Hmmm... so we can see that what Cotton did is nothing new.  Whether you agree with Cotton and the forty-six others is beside the point because both parties have participated in these actions in the past.  So, to use a #47Traitors is a little to harsh- especially when we have a current Secretary of State who has done the same thing (see Kerry's name above) when he was serving.

Now the bottom line - what Cotton said is true.  Any agreement that the President makes with Iran must be approved by Congress.  If that agreement is not approved by Congress, then it becomes nothing more than an "Executive Order".  As we know from much debate, Executive Orders can be overturned by the next President.  In fact, Executive Orders can be overturned by the President who issued it.   Iran's claim that if the President makes an agreement the United States must honor it based on International Law is simply....for a lack of a better word....stupid.  In the first place, the United States Constitution must be upheld first and foremost before International Law.  As stated above, the President's agreement must be approved by Congress.  If it is approved by Congress, then sure, the United States will honor the agreement - but really - we are going to sit back and be lectured on International Law by Iran?   The Iranian government has broken more international laws in thirty years plus than any other country on the face of the planet.  The only thing the Iranians should be experts on regarding International Law is their ability to dodge it, go around it, or outright break it.

The bottom line - Good job Senator Cotton- You and your forty-six fellow senators are simply saying what Americans have been saying all along.  It's time for someone to listen to the people who elected them for a change and that's something that many in Washington forget soon after they arrive.....Cotton on the other hand is a different kind of senator and a different kind of leader.   Cotton is listening to the people not only in Arkansas, but he's listening to them around the nation.  WE don't want a nuclear Iran.  We don't want our allies in harm's way and we don't want the United States in harms way.  I sleep better at night, feel better for my children's future, and feel better for America's future knowing there is someone in Washington fighting the fight we sent him there to fight.  No, the forty-seven are not traitors by any stretch of the imagination.  In fact they are #47Patriots standing up for the people of our country and clarifying that this President can not make deals that are binding without Congress' approval.  Those in Washington may have just found out that walking in "Tall" Cotton is hard to do when the people back home support him.
Picture Credit

Mar 12, 2015

Why Hillary's Emails Matter

While Congress rushes around and tries to figure out exactly what emails Hillary Clinton may have used on her private servers for government business and what emails she may have hidden from Congress, there is a few important facts being overlooked. The problem that anyone has with emails is confidentiality.  How do you ensure something being sent over the Internet is not picked up by anyone else?  How do you ensure that your email name is not being used falsely and misinformation is being sent?  Finally, how do you ensure that some hacker has not placed a virus in the email account that could easily be spread to other email accounts and computers, like government computers?  The answer to all the above questions is, it's very difficult to do.  Let's look at the facts here:

1.  By having a private email account ( or whatever) Hillary had to pay some company to provide that domain.  She would have had to use someone like to accomplish this.  This means that the "Nameserver" at Godaddy would have to tell all emails coming in with the extension of "" to go to a specific address.  That specific address would be Hillary's server at her home.  Once the email reached the server at her home, it would in turn shoot out of her home and go to whatever device she has to read emails.  Hillary only uses one phone, according to one interview but a another interview says she uses two, or a computer.  So we can assume the email would go to this device.  In turn, when Hillary would send an email back, it would go back through the same pattern to reach whoever the receiver would be.  So breaking it down, here's the number of people who could have accessed Hillary's, assumed, confidential and possibly classified emails:
    A.  The staff, anyone of them, at whatever provider she used (like Godaddy).
    B.  Anyone in the Clinton home that might access that server - friends, family, cleaning crews, etc.
    C.  Anyone in the Clinton neighborhood who might have tapped into the email server.
    D.  Anyone along any route the email went that might have hacked the server.

Makes you feel real comfortable doesn't it?

2.  The second problem becomes a matter of policy.  Hillary's policy was that everyone uses on the government emails.  This is a good policy since the government would issue their own servers, their own nameservers, and the emails would be held in government records.  What happens if Hillary's home burned, the server crashed, or some other disaster and she had not backed up?  It is assumed the government's mainframe (a much larger and more powerful computer) would be backed up somewhere off site.  We do not know if Hillary did this.  Hillary's policy was that everyone use a government email - so why not Hillary?  Is she above her own rules?  If she thinks she is above her own rules, then might she think she is above our laws?

3.  The final part of this problem is access.  If Hillary had used the government account, like everyone else, her emails would be part of the government record.  This means the emails would have been accessible by Congress or other authorized branches of the government.  You know - that whole checks and balances thing.  Yet, her emails were private and off-site - to further complicate things, when all the concerns originally came up and the need to review records, why did Hillary not say, "Oh yes, and I also have my email account you will need to review?"  It kinda reminds me of Bill saying, "Define sex."  If we have to split hairs, then Congress should have asked for, "Anything that you wrote, typed, dictated, said, sent in a message, or email either government or otherwise while serving as....." but why?  Why should they have to split hairs and get so detailed? They asked for emails during the time she served - simple, or so it should be.  As it stands right now, apparently Hillary deleted emails that she decided were private before turning over the other emails.  Can we really trust her ability to decide what emails are private and what emails are government related?  Perhaps we should ask Hillary to "define private" specifically for us so we'll all be on the same page.

The bottom line, Hillary has more than proven that she can not be trusted.  She betrayed the trust of America by using a private email server that could have been accessed by our enemies or others.  She betrayed the trust of Congress by failing to mention the email server initially.  Regardless of whether you are Democrat or Republican, the question becomes do YOU  really want this person as your President?

Mar 3, 2015

In Defense of Webb and Hutchinson

Arkansas Republican Page - Doyle Webb
The Arkansas Times recently posted a somewhat scathing article that takes an outright jab at Doyle Webb and how he has benefited from the election of Governor Hutchinson.  The article (Arkansas Times Article) targets Webb's criticism of Hillary Clinton's connection to the Clinton Foundation and some donations received.  Specifically, Webb is criticising the Foundation for taking money from foreign countries.  The fact is that by taking that money it compromises the American political system as Webb pointed out.  The article compares the acceptance of money from foreign countries to the appointment of Webb's wife, Barbara Webb, to the Workers Compensation Commission of Arkansas.    To make the concluding point, the article states about Webb "Look who's talking".

Yes....look who's talking Arkansas.

On the point of looking at who is talking, I couldn't agree more with the Arkansas Times.  Doyle Webb is talking about a potential presidential candidate, a person considering a run at the top office in the United States, that is taking foreign money through the Clinton Foundation.  If the Clinton Foundation wants to accept foreign funds, that's fine.  Bill Clinton can not run for president again, so any money received as donations to the foundation can be used how the foundation decides.  However, Hillary, also a part of the foundation and at the top of the foundation, can run for president.  When you have a person who is considering a run for president accepting money from foreign countries, Doyle Webb, and in fact every single American, has a right to question where the loyalties and if decisions as president will be based on America's best interest, the Clinton Foundation's best interest, or the foreign country who donated funds best interest.  We should all be as bold as Doyle Webb and ask this question.  So yes, as the Arkansas Times states we should look at who is talking, but that was not the intention of the statement "Look who's talking".  The statement was meant as a jab because Doyle's wife has benefited from a Republican Governor being elected in Arkansas.

Consider this - almost all Presidents, Governors, Senators, State Representatives, etc. who are elected to office have to make appointments.  They appoint people to various post and that's common.  First, you expect them to appoint people with like-minded views.  If you're pro-life in other words, you don't look to appoint pro-choice people to post around the country or state.  It's just not what you are going to do.  You look to post like-minded people, you post people who support your views, who supported your campaign, and post people from your party - them being like-minded and all.  Bill Clinton did it when he was Governor of Arkansas, so did Huckabee, so did Beebe.  There were people during Governor Beebe's term who were appointed to various state offices simply based on the fact they were Democrat supporters.  That's what we expect to happen, and in truth any elected official in his or her right mind will try to surround themselves with....wait for it.....that's people.

Governor Hutchinson did exactly what a governor should do.  He found someone with a point-of-view like his who was qualified and appointed that person.  Yes, he also found someone who happens to be Republican and who's husband happens to be the head of the Arkansas Republican what.  If someday Governor Hutchinson were to become President, most people in Arkansas would expect him to appoint people from Arkansas to various offices in Washington.....I mean Bill Clinton did it and other Presidents have appointed people from their home states.  I would expect Governor Hutchinson to make more appointments while he is in office.  Some of those appointments will be people he knows directly, some will be people he meets, and some will be Republicans referred to him.  Like other governors, I expect he will appoint some Democrats and even people with no party affiliation as well.  But you can be sure of one thing, he is going to appoint like-minded people regardless of their party or previous positions.  Maybe the Arkansas Times should take a step back and look through history before throwing a jab at Doyle Webb.