Thursday, February 16, 2017

A lesson in morals

The deal is this. The Left wants to claim that Flynn did wrong and but for the illegal leaks of someone in the intelligence agencies, no one would know.

It is a claim that two wrongs make a right. “We had to destroy the village to save it.”

So the question is as old as sin
Who will watch the watchers?

Given that the FISA court was contacted when a US citizen was listened to, and we have no way of knowing that, and the conversation was assumed to have some illegality about it, you would hope and assume that it would be referred to the DOJ.

The DOJ would then try and determine if the conversation was illegal. Either way, if the person was on the President's staff/employment, you would assume he would be informed.

Nowhere in that chain do we have any reason whatsoever for any information to be leaked to the press or anyone else.

Now, IF the actions of the President, in the eyes of the AG, were found to be unacceptable then the AG should go public and resign. If that doesn't happen then others within the chain should go public and resign.

The press and the voters can then become involved.

But that isn't what is happening. What we have are people who are political opponents of the President trying to harm the President from the shadows.

That's wrong. They weren’t elected and by doing so they send a chill through our political processes and reveal to the enemy our ability to collect intelligence.

And yes, if the "going public" is required I understand that the individuals will be harmed, if not physically, then professionally. But that comes with the job just as was the possibility of being killed in training or combat comes with being in the military or any other job that entails “defending the Constitution."

Simply put, if you don’t want such responsibilities then don’t take the job.

(Part of this was previously published in www.TalkLeft.com.

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper


  1. Speaking of uninformed claims:

    Is the memo accurate?

    First of all, we note that while Limbaugh talked about a letter, there is no evidence that Kennedy ever sent one to Andropov. We asked the Senate Historical Office and the Reagan Library for any record of either a letter or overture made by Kennedy’s office to the Soviet leadership in 1983. Both found nothing.

    At the end of the day, without any independent documentation, assessing Limbaugh’s claim hinges on whether you believe the memo is telling the truth.

    The memo gained attention when it was the basis of a news report published in the Times of London in 1992. When the report came out, Tunney told the Times that it was "bullshit." We reached Tunney and he emphatically repeated that.

    "The idea that I would be handling contacts with Andropov is preposterous," Tunney said. "This memo is completely false."

    At the time, Tunney was no longer a senator but a private businessman; his friendship with Kennedy dated back to law school. He said that while he had made many trips to Moscow over the years and knew people in the KGB, the only political topic Kennedy ever asked him to broach with the Soviets was a deal to release dozens of dissidents. In exchange, Kennedy would make a speech at a university in one of the USSR’s republics in Central Asia. That took place several years earlier.

    Tunney said that some time after the memo emerged, Kennedy asked him if he knew anything about it and Tunney said "this is crazy."

    In 1992, a Boston Herald reporter reached Kennedy spokesman Paul Donovan. Donovan said Kennedy’s office had made other efforts to meet with Andropov, but nothing ever came of it. According to the Herald, Donovan said "The rest of the memo is KGB fiction."

    You know what they call people who take the side of the Russians or Soviets?

    Yes, yes you did.

    1. Uh, Dude....Who in the world was talking about Limbaugh???

      But thanks for the help...

      "In 1992, a Boston Herald reporter reached Kennedy spokesman Paul Donovan. Donovan said Kennedy’s office had made other efforts to meet with Andropov, but nothing ever came of it. "

  2. Per Donald From Hawaii's latest suggestion: