Why the RNC was Peaceful

The Republican Party just wrapped up it's convention and there was very little violence.

Scratch that. 

There was virtually none.

This is in sharp contrast to the recent experience at Trump campaign rallies and the dire predictions of violence by the media.

There were virtually no protesters, and certainly none of the professional protester class that make trouble around the world at political events bothered to show up.

Why?  

There are several reasons:

The protesters all got jobs and couldn't make time in their busy work week to show up and protest.    Ha!  Kidding.   Just seeing if you were paying attention. 

Cleveland was fully prepared.  We don't know a lot about the security preparations and that is proof that they were well done.   Whatever the Police and other agencies did to keep the peace, it worked, and they should be commended. 

The Left is saving its Ire for Hillary The hard Left is mad at Trump, but they are really extra special mad about Hillary.   This will only get worse as WikiLeaks reveals the true extent of the hatchet job the DNC did on Bernie.   I think the leftists will turn out in droves in Philadelphia, and there will be more violence as the week goes on. 

The Optics are Bad for the Left.   Donald Trump and his peers will be inside the convention center saying that immigrants and Muslims are violent, dangerous and anti American.  It doesn't look good to have a bunch of immigrants and Muslims outside the building being violent and dangerous while waving Mexican flags. 

I think the largest factor here is the optics.    The Media and the Left have noticed that every time a Trump supporter gets attacked by a bunch of hippy anarchists or illegal immigrants, his poll numbers go up. 

So they stayed home, and the RNC was safer for it.

Now, if we can get them to stay home in November and elect a Republican, we can rest easy in a country that will be safer for it.

More Proof Guns are Dangerous... to Leftists

The Republican National Convention just wrapped up in Cleveland, and we can now compare the actual results to all the dire predictions from the Left.  It turns out, to the surprise of exactly no one with half a brain, that they were completely wrong. 

The Media predicted a bloodbath at the RNC due to the insane laws that permit people to (gasp!!) openly carry firearms .

The news papers all jumped on the Police Union's concern over the open carry law:

CNN: "Cleveland police union asks for suspension of 'open carry' in wake of Baton Rouge, ahead of RNC."

Yahoo!: "Police union: Open carry of guns should be suspended at Republican convention in Cleveland."

The Washington Post: "Police union calls for open-carry gun ban as fears of violence mount ahead of the GOP convention

Well, of course the results are in: it was the safest political convention in years. 

Very few arrests.  Zero violent demonstrations.  No shootings. 

The only thing in danger from people peacefully exercising their rights is the wrong headed ideas of the Left. 

The open carry laws may not have prevented violence -- there are many other reasons why the Left chose not to demonstrate at the RNC -- but it is proven once again that law abiding citizens possessing firearms are not the problem in this country.

The Real Reason Hillary was not Indicted

The facts are pretty clear -- Hillary Clinton violated multiple Federal statutes in her extremely careless handling of classified material and other work related materials.

So why wasn't she indicted?  The FBI claimed that she lacked intent, and that 'no reasonable prosecutor' would have taken the case.

Both of these excuses are lies.

She intended to set up the server.  She intended to strip classified markings from documents.  She intended to give her legal team access to classified material when they did not possess the proper clearance.

Many 'reasonable' prosecutors have stepped forward to say that they would, in fact, indict her.   After all, if a 'reasonable' Marylin Moseby can indict police officers in the Freddie Gray case, it is not hard to assume you can find a prosecutor to press charges against Hillary.

So why, then, are there no charges forthcoming?

It is not because Democrats don't play be the rules, or that Hillary is considered to be above the law.

It is because a guilty verdict against Hillary destroys they entire Democratic Party, impeaches a President, and creates a Constitutional crisis without precedent. 

One of the provisions of the Federal statutes regarding the safe handling of Classified material is a 'duty to report'.   If you are aware of a situation that may compromise the security of information, you have an active duty to report that to the proper people.

Hillary Clinton's use of a .com email address instead of .gov domain is clear evidence of non-secure handling of classified material.   No one reported her for doing so.

Therefore, anyone and everyone that sent or received a message to the @clintonemail.com email address is guilty of failure to report.

How far does this spread?  Well, we know for a fact that it covers all of her personal staff.  Everyone of them is guilty of a felony.

Most of the senior members of the State Department can safely be assumed to have seen an email with a non-.gov address. All of them are guilty.

What did Obama know and when did he know it?

We can even assume that other cabinet level Secretaries must have communicated with the Secretary of State at some point.  

It is even likely that the President of the United States at some point used his famous Blackberry to communicate with Hillary.   If so, he is guilty of a Federal felony.

The decision not to indict Hillary was not about her.  It was about protecting the entire senior leadership of the Democratic party.  And probably some Republicans, too.

If this case were pursued to its logical conclusion, the entire Obama administration would be under felony indictment.  

That's the reason she was not indicted. 

A Republic, if You Can Keep It.

We chose a Republic over a Monarchy several centuries ago :

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

What's the difference between a Monarchy and a Republic, you ask?  The Rule of Law.

 And now, the Rule of Law is dead.   It has probably been dead since Justice Roberts declared Obama Care to be Constitutional because it means the opposite of what it says. 

But it is officially dead now.

The FBI has declined to press charges against Hillary Clinton.

In the face of overwhelming proof, the FBI has declared that she will not be charged with a crime.

This is the end of the Rule of Law.

The FBI's own statements on the matter prove beyond any doubt that she should be facing hundreds of felony charges for mishandling classified material:

"...there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."


She is guilty -- the FBI states it in plain language.

And then they decline to press charges.

There is ample precedent for charging people with putting classified email on non classified servers. 

But they say she didn't have intent to damage US national interests when she violated statutes that explicitly do not require intent.

Hillary is too big to nail.

The Rule of Law is dead.  Long Live Queen Hillary.