Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Tam's Law:

In any discussion of a disguised anti-gun/anti-self-defense person/organization, a percentage of the readers will ALWAYS devolve into a discussion of the merits of the firearm involved.

'Career civil servants are in charge' my ass.
PJ Media has learned that a team of career lawyers, expert analysts, and supervisors in the Justice Department Voting Section recommended that South Carolina’s photo voter identification law be precleared under the Voting Rights Act as non-discriminatory. Presidential appointees in the Justice Department then disregarded the career recommendation and an objection followed, blocking South Carolina’s voter ID law.

So one of the founders of Greenpeace says their actions amount to crimes against humanity; tells you something about what it's become.

Nixon said something like 'there's a belief that if the President does it, it's legal' and caught hell for it. From our Defense Secretary:
O’Donnell then asked Panetta a direct question: What’s the difference between what the SEAL did and the leaks that have come from the administration to journalists and filmmakers? Panetta spun: “There’s a fundamental difference. The people that presented some of the details of the operations were authorized to do that by the president of the United States, who has that authority to do that, and inform the American people as to what happened. In this case, that was not the case. And that’s the difference.”

This is a scary-as-hell 'What could happen'; bleep, I hope he's wrong.

Oh, and the 'rebels' are dragging the ambassadors' dead body around. Just like the bastards in Mogadishu and Haditha. How's that Arab Spring working out, Mr. Obama?

1 comment:

Sigivald said...

Panetta might well be right, as a matter of law.

Unlike Nixon's reference to the Huston Plan (which violated various laws that the President simply had no authority to override), Panetta's talking about revealing information.

As Commander in Chief, he (the President) probably does have the legal authority to authorize that; security decisions like that are firmly in the hands of the Executive branch, aren't they?

It's probably unwise and harmful to American interests... but that's not the same as being illegal.