Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Speaking of silly-ass statements,
Guns should be regarded as a tiger in the home that can attack at any time, said Middletown police Detective Janice Jones.
That shotgun you have? maybe with a short barrel in case of
uninvited guests? Especially if you mounted a light or laser or red dot on it? According to the Jersey City police chief, it should be banned; it's a 'tactical weapon', after all.
Any gun owner who says things like "Until they come after my grouse gun, I'm not worried" is a fool.
Any gun owner who says things like "Until they come after my grouse gun, I'm not worried" is a fool.
Damn! I've seen .380 selling for $50/box, but in Mexico
you can get grenades for that.
The grenades sold legally to help U.S. allies in the region are snatched by corrupt soldiers who get paid by former colleagues, then cover their tracks by altering paperwork. Grenades then wind through Central America and Mexico, selling for $100 when bought individually and $50 apiece when purchased in bulk, according to the ATF.
ATF officials said the United States keeps tight controls over its own grenade inventories and that it knows of no grenades recovered in Mexico that were taken directly from American military supplies.
Which, if they had any regard for truth, would shut off the bullcrap from the Brady Gun Ban People and the VPC about 'grenades bought at gun shows'; but since they don't have regard for truth when it gets in the way of their aims, we'll keep hearing it, I'm sure.
Scott Stewart, a vice president for the global intelligence firm Stratfor and a former diplomatic security agent for the State Department, said an even more daunting challenge in trying to prevent grenade smuggling into the United States is the porousness of the border.
"If we have bales of marijuana coming in and kilos of cocaine coming in, it's hard to guard against a handful of grenades," Stewart said.
True; which would, if they etc., cut off the nonsense about "If we ban guns, nobody will have them." Hey, last time I heard grenades are banned, and yet...
Added: some thoughts over at Gun Rights Examiner
The grenades sold legally to help U.S. allies in the region are snatched by corrupt soldiers who get paid by former colleagues, then cover their tracks by altering paperwork. Grenades then wind through Central America and Mexico, selling for $100 when bought individually and $50 apiece when purchased in bulk, according to the ATF.
ATF officials said the United States keeps tight controls over its own grenade inventories and that it knows of no grenades recovered in Mexico that were taken directly from American military supplies.
Which, if they had any regard for truth, would shut off the bullcrap from the Brady Gun Ban People and the VPC about 'grenades bought at gun shows'; but since they don't have regard for truth when it gets in the way of their aims, we'll keep hearing it, I'm sure.
Scott Stewart, a vice president for the global intelligence firm Stratfor and a former diplomatic security agent for the State Department, said an even more daunting challenge in trying to prevent grenade smuggling into the United States is the porousness of the border.
"If we have bales of marijuana coming in and kilos of cocaine coming in, it's hard to guard against a handful of grenades," Stewart said.
True; which would, if they etc., cut off the nonsense about "If we ban guns, nobody will have them." Hey, last time I heard grenades are banned, and yet...
Added: some thoughts over at Gun Rights Examiner
Some are pointing out slight problems with Mary Robinson
getting the Medal of Freedom; mostly they've been pointing at her hostility toward Israel in particular and Jews in general. I would point out that she's also been very big on disarming the peasantsbanning guns. All in the name of 'saving the CHILLLDDREEEENNN! and women and old people, of course; and who could be against that except the evil arms merchants and gun nuts, etc. And think about the control she wants to give the UN over every country in the world to be able to run her ideas.
I remember reading one interview where she spoke of 'guns making the situation in Rwanda worse' where she talked around the fact that almost all of the killing was done with big knives; she also manages to ignore the fact that the violence, murder and slavery in Darfur is largely muslims killing, raping and enslaving non-muslims:
...The situation is one where because the land scarcity problem, the economic problems of drought et cetera manifested themselves and worsened the situation between the tribunal groups and the population in Darfur, and because there was no sense of zero tolerance of gender based violence.
I'm acutely aware that part of the real problem that arose is when women were killed and raped. Nobody shouted, "Stop, this can't go on," the guns were available, the roaming militia had been able to get women in the camps and when they go out for firewood, when they go out for water. And it is shocking. There is no excuse for it and it is because these weapons have been so widely available.
Notice anything missing? Yeah, so did I.
So why would Obama want to give her the Medal of Freedom? Well, she doesn't like Jews or Israel, she makes excuses for muslims acting badly and she doesn't want the peasants to own guns; why wouldn't someone who thinks like Obama want to give it to her?
I remember reading one interview where she spoke of 'guns making the situation in Rwanda worse' where she talked around the fact that almost all of the killing was done with big knives; she also manages to ignore the fact that the violence, murder and slavery in Darfur is largely muslims killing, raping and enslaving non-muslims:
...The situation is one where because the land scarcity problem, the economic problems of drought et cetera manifested themselves and worsened the situation between the tribunal groups and the population in Darfur, and because there was no sense of zero tolerance of gender based violence.
I'm acutely aware that part of the real problem that arose is when women were killed and raped. Nobody shouted, "Stop, this can't go on," the guns were available, the roaming militia had been able to get women in the camps and when they go out for firewood, when they go out for water. And it is shocking. There is no excuse for it and it is because these weapons have been so widely available.
Notice anything missing? Yeah, so did I.
So why would Obama want to give her the Medal of Freedom? Well, she doesn't like Jews or Israel, she makes excuses for muslims acting badly and she doesn't want the peasants to own guns; why wouldn't someone who thinks like Obama want to give it to her?
The politicians and activists having fits and PSH over tea parties
and people actually saying 'Knock it off, dammit!' to the socialized medicine scheme are attacking, and Malkin and Sondra point to some of their whining. AND to some of the crap they've done in the past and are doing now.
It's ok to do actually disrupt military movements, and trash people in every way possible and attack their families, because they are the caring, progressive ones who are doing it; but don't you DARE actually tell the politicians 'no', because that makes you unAmerican and a terrorist and just generally nasty.
Which means the politicians who are not allowing anyone but yes-people into meetings and hiding from anyone who says 'no' and squealing and crapping their pants are feeling the heat, big-time.
It's ok to do actually disrupt military movements, and trash people in every way possible and attack their families, because they are the caring, progressive ones who are doing it; but don't you DARE actually tell the politicians 'no', because that makes you unAmerican and a terrorist and just generally nasty.
Which means the politicians who are not allowing anyone but yes-people into meetings and hiding from anyone who says 'no' and squealing and crapping their pants are feeling the heat, big-time.
Just to prove why people groan when Hollyweird says "We're making
'X' book into a movie!", I give you
GUY Ritchie's plan to put a gay spin on the relationship of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in his new movie about the detective and his sidekick could backfire.
Robert Downey Jr, who plays Holmes, has revealed the crimebuster will sleep with and have sweaty grappling scenes with Watson, played by Jude Law, in "Sherlock Holmes," due out Christmas Day.
"We're two men who happen to be roommates, wrestle a lot and share a bed. It's bad-ass," Downey told Britain's News of the World. Added much-in-the-news Law: "Guy wanted to make this about the relationship between Watson and Holmes. They're both mean and complicated."
Yeah, THAT'S just effing thrilling to hear, isn't it? Ah, but they have a plan, you see:
Still, some fans welcome the jolt. Manhattan thriller writer Jason Starr, whose book "Panic Attack" hits stores this week, said: "This sounds like exactly the type of updating the series needs to attract a new generation. Playing up the homoerotic undercurrents in 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' worked rather well. If Conan Doyle was writing today, he would have been much more provocative with the characters."
So, some morons decide to 'update the series' by throwing this crap in. A good story isn't enough, strong characters don't count, but this garbage does.
I hope the damn thing bombs on a level that would normally be used to whack a bunker full of Taliban.
I'd say 'thanks to Ace for pointing this out', but he just messed up my morning.
GUY Ritchie's plan to put a gay spin on the relationship of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in his new movie about the detective and his sidekick could backfire.
Robert Downey Jr, who plays Holmes, has revealed the crimebuster will sleep with and have sweaty grappling scenes with Watson, played by Jude Law, in "Sherlock Holmes," due out Christmas Day.
"We're two men who happen to be roommates, wrestle a lot and share a bed. It's bad-ass," Downey told Britain's News of the World. Added much-in-the-news Law: "Guy wanted to make this about the relationship between Watson and Holmes. They're both mean and complicated."
Yeah, THAT'S just effing thrilling to hear, isn't it? Ah, but they have a plan, you see:
Still, some fans welcome the jolt. Manhattan thriller writer Jason Starr, whose book "Panic Attack" hits stores this week, said: "This sounds like exactly the type of updating the series needs to attract a new generation. Playing up the homoerotic undercurrents in 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' worked rather well. If Conan Doyle was writing today, he would have been much more provocative with the characters."
So, some morons decide to 'update the series' by throwing this crap in. A good story isn't enough, strong characters don't count, but this garbage does.
I hope the damn thing bombs on a level that would normally be used to whack a bunker full of Taliban.
I'd say 'thanks to Ace for pointing this out', but he just messed up my morning.
Socialized medicine; a preview of the national version
Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.
"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.
Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.
Of course, we're told that she's 'misinterpreting' what she was told:
Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.
but
Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. However, he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's.
"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.
As I said: National Health Care, a preview.
The Oregon Health Plan simply hasn't kept up with dramatic changes in chemotherapy, said Dr. David Fryefield of the Willamette Valley Cancer Center.
Even for those with advanced cancer, new chemotherapy drugs can extend life.
Yet the Oregon Health Plan only offers coverage for chemo that cures cancer - not if it can prolong a patient's life.
"We are looking at today's ... 2008 treatment, but we're using 1993 standards," Fryefield said. "When the Oregon Health Plan was created, it was 15 years ago, and there were not all the chemotherapy drugs that there are today."
But, of course, if the FEDERAL government takes over your health care, it will always be perfectly up to speed and efficient... excuse me, I hear oinking and wing noises outside the windows.
"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.
Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.
Of course, we're told that she's 'misinterpreting' what she was told:
Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.
but
Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. However, he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's.
"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.
As I said: National Health Care, a preview.
The Oregon Health Plan simply hasn't kept up with dramatic changes in chemotherapy, said Dr. David Fryefield of the Willamette Valley Cancer Center.
Even for those with advanced cancer, new chemotherapy drugs can extend life.
Yet the Oregon Health Plan only offers coverage for chemo that cures cancer - not if it can prolong a patient's life.
"We are looking at today's ... 2008 treatment, but we're using 1993 standards," Fryefield said. "When the Oregon Health Plan was created, it was 15 years ago, and there were not all the chemotherapy drugs that there are today."
But, of course, if the FEDERAL government takes over your health care, it will always be perfectly up to speed and efficient... excuse me, I hear oinking and wing noises outside the windows.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
And while they're taxing hell out of us for putting wear on the highways,
they'll also know where we went. And for how long.
And don't tell me "That's insane, they won't do that!", because the natural progression of shit like this is to increase what they know about you and thus their opportunities to control you. I'm sure they'll have some 'reasonable'-sounding excuse for it, but sure as hell, they'll do it.
Actually, they'll do it without bothering to let people know about it first. And since this would require a federal database of all vehicles owned and by who so they can know exactly who to tax by the mile, it would be simple to add 'destination' into the tracking. Especially for people who are annoying them by calling this kind of crap what it is.
And don't tell me "That's insane, they won't do that!", because the natural progression of shit like this is to increase what they know about you and thus their opportunities to control you. I'm sure they'll have some 'reasonable'-sounding excuse for it, but sure as hell, they'll do it.
Actually, they'll do it without bothering to let people know about it first. And since this would require a federal database of all vehicles owned and by who so they can know exactly who to tax by the mile, it would be simple to add 'destination' into the tracking. Especially for people who are annoying them by calling this kind of crap what it is.
Senator Feinstein(Rich Socialist-CA) has never met a way to screw people over
she didn't like; at least in regards to anyone with that dastardly idea of owning a gun.
She’s introducing a bill to prohibit foreign felons from possessing firearms, regardless of whether the foreign country in question has the same due process protections as American Court. Recall that in 2005, in the case of Small vs. US, the Court said that “convicted in any court” did not apply to foreign courts. Just thinking of some famous cases where DiFi’s prohibition would apply:
He notes that her bill includes an 'exception' that's almost meaningless.
She’s introducing a bill to prohibit foreign felons from possessing firearms, regardless of whether the foreign country in question has the same due process protections as American Court. Recall that in 2005, in the case of Small vs. US, the Court said that “convicted in any court” did not apply to foreign courts. Just thinking of some famous cases where DiFi’s prohibition would apply:
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, served time in a Soviet gulag for being an enemy of the State.
- Francis Gary Powers. convicted in a Soviet Court and sentenced to hard labor for spying after his U2 was shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960.
- Laura Ling and Euna Lee, convicted of spying on North Korea after being kidnapped from China.
He notes that her bill includes an 'exception' that's almost meaningless.
I don't point to this guy often enough
James at Hell in a Handbasket; personal stories, firearms history, self-defense tips and gaming stuff. Well worth checking out on a regular basis.
On Honduras,
Fausta, in her roundup of the region, has a section on Honduras with lots of info. Including this:
Look at this! This guy Hugo Llorens is supposed to be our ambassador to Honduras. Here he is yesterday hugging Zelaya the friend, confidant, and accomplice of Hugo Chavez, Fidel and Raul Castro, the child molestor Daniel Ortega, and others. My God! How low can we go? This is simply going to incite and embolden the violent followers of Zelaya.
Isn't is just wonderful who The One is putting in places of influence?
Look at this! This guy Hugo Llorens is supposed to be our ambassador to Honduras. Here he is yesterday hugging Zelaya the friend, confidant, and accomplice of Hugo Chavez, Fidel and Raul Castro, the child molestor Daniel Ortega, and others. My God! How low can we go? This is simply going to incite and embolden the violent followers of Zelaya.
Isn't is just wonderful who The One is putting in places of influence?
The squirrels who started and pushed the 'Palin divorce' rumor
are, I think, in a bit of difficulty. As in 'About to get their ass kicked bigtime' over the bullshit. If you're interested start with the first link, then just start down through McCain's site and Reihl's site.
Among other things, I think you'll find it enlightening who CNN considers a good employee.
Among other things, I think you'll find it enlightening who CNN considers a good employee.
Socialized medicine = VA;
that's a GOOD thing?
In the past five years, I have had problems with my kidneys, liver, and pancreas due to the huge number of drugs I took for so long. I am now a diabetic due to that damage. I have bone spurs in my spine brought on from the steroid shots I received for years at the hands of the VA to help me manage the pain of my injury.
I just called on a new neurosurgeon last week. He will be operating to fix some of those bone spurs in my neck next week. From the time I had the MRI done to recovery room will be just under two months.
Two months.
Two months versus nine years of working through a government medical care program. One that made the lives of not only myself but also my wife and family utterly miserable for years.
If anyone thinks that the government running health care is a good idea, remember all the horror stories that you have heard about how the VA takes care of America’s heroes.
Remember that at least ten thousand vets at VA hospitals across the southeast had to be tested for HIV and hepatitis because the VA medical centers couldn’t follow the instructions on how to clean equipment, and that at least fifty have been infected because of that.
Remember that the Philadelphia VA medical center mismanaged the prostate cancer treatments of almost a hundred vets. And the list goes on and on.
And remember this story, too.
A while back in comments a guy said that "Socialized medicine will be just like the VA system which does wonderful work." Which kind of grated against all the stuff I've heard over years about the VA, stuff like this. I don't doubt there are doctors and facilities in the VA system that are wonderful; in the overall it appears to be a standard bloated bureaucracy more concerned with itself than actually accomplishing the job. And that's exactly the health care we'll ALL have if Obama & Co. get their way.
In the past five years, I have had problems with my kidneys, liver, and pancreas due to the huge number of drugs I took for so long. I am now a diabetic due to that damage. I have bone spurs in my spine brought on from the steroid shots I received for years at the hands of the VA to help me manage the pain of my injury.
I just called on a new neurosurgeon last week. He will be operating to fix some of those bone spurs in my neck next week. From the time I had the MRI done to recovery room will be just under two months.
Two months.
Two months versus nine years of working through a government medical care program. One that made the lives of not only myself but also my wife and family utterly miserable for years.
If anyone thinks that the government running health care is a good idea, remember all the horror stories that you have heard about how the VA takes care of America’s heroes.
Remember that at least ten thousand vets at VA hospitals across the southeast had to be tested for HIV and hepatitis because the VA medical centers couldn’t follow the instructions on how to clean equipment, and that at least fifty have been infected because of that.
Remember that the Philadelphia VA medical center mismanaged the prostate cancer treatments of almost a hundred vets. And the list goes on and on.
And remember this story, too.
A while back in comments a guy said that "Socialized medicine will be just like the VA system which does wonderful work." Which kind of grated against all the stuff I've heard over years about the VA, stuff like this. I don't doubt there are doctors and facilities in the VA system that are wonderful; in the overall it appears to be a standard bloated bureaucracy more concerned with itself than actually accomplishing the job. And that's exactly the health care we'll ALL have if Obama & Co. get their way.
It seems some people have tender feelings
to go along with their double standards:
"Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery," says Hutchinson, "it is mean-spirited and dangerous."
"We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama."
Wow. Where was Hutchinson during the previous eight years of BusHitler depictions? (And let's not forget Bush as the devil.) He's offended now? He thinks this kind of expression is "dangerous"? Please.
There's a case to be made that this kind of thing is kind of disrespectful to anyone in the Oval Office. But it is the very definition of free expression, and it rings more than a little hollow for a liberal such as Hutchinson to complain about this now.
And while we're talking about double standards, I notice that L.A. Weekly blog which looked at the the Obama Joker poster and declared it so obviously racist that "the only thing missing is a noose" didn't seem to have a problem with an actual, as opposeed to feverishly imagined, depiction of lynching Sarah Palin.
Of COURSE not; she's an evil woman who doesn't toe the PC line and is a threat to these clowns' plans; they don't care about threats and lies and slanders directed toward her any more than they did those aimed at Bush.Yes, I know some odd songs
Theo has a post on the difficulties, real or perceived, of some women with great endowment in one respect. Which reminded me of a song from Alex Beaton:
I'll sing you the story of Big Nellie May,
who took up the golf in a serious way.
With her shiny new clubs and her big plastic bag,
she could easily pass for Jack Nicklaus in drag.
With a toori-li-oori-li-oori-li-ay
Now, Nellie was handicapped more than the rest;
her stoke was impaired by the size of her chest.
Her overdevelopment proved her downfall,
when she swung, they both swung and all missed the ball
with a...
Nellie decided they hampered her stroke
so she tethered them up with a big piece of rope.
But they didn't like bein' tied up in a noose,
and the very next stroke, Ach! the rascals were loose.
with a...
In sheer desperation she turned to the pro.
He look at her "Nell,", and said "Well, I don't know,
I've only seen two that look like yours do,
and they were on a camel in Caulder Park Zoo."
with a...
This careless remark at the poor girls' physique
caused Nellie to lash out in a great fit of pique;
her blow caught the pro in his most cherished spot,
and now he's got two just as big as she's got.
With a... (twice)
I'll sing you the story of Big Nellie May,
who took up the golf in a serious way.
With her shiny new clubs and her big plastic bag,
she could easily pass for Jack Nicklaus in drag.
With a toori-li-oori-li-oori-li-ay
Now, Nellie was handicapped more than the rest;
her stoke was impaired by the size of her chest.
Her overdevelopment proved her downfall,
when she swung, they both swung and all missed the ball
with a...
Nellie decided they hampered her stroke
so she tethered them up with a big piece of rope.
But they didn't like bein' tied up in a noose,
and the very next stroke, Ach! the rascals were loose.
with a...
In sheer desperation she turned to the pro.
He look at her "Nell,", and said "Well, I don't know,
I've only seen two that look like yours do,
and they were on a camel in Caulder Park Zoo."
with a...
This careless remark at the poor girls' physique
caused Nellie to lash out in a great fit of pique;
her blow caught the pro in his most cherished spot,
and now he's got two just as big as she's got.
With a... (twice)
Sunday, August 02, 2009
AG Eric Holder acting unethically in the Justice Department?
Appointing unqualified people? Who'd have expected such a thing?(Yes, I know, put your hand down; that's sarcasm, people)
Both in Congress and among a number of current and former Justice Department employees is a growing concern that the Obama administration is politicizing the department in ways the Bush team never imagined. A former Justice employee cautions that every administration has the right and the obligation to set policy. "Elections have consequences," he affirms. But he thinks that the Obama administration has gone beyond policy reversals and is interfering with prosecutorial decisions, staffing the department with unqualified personnel, and invoking privilege to thwart proper congressional oversight and public scrutiny.
...
While some conservatives doubted that the man who helped facilitate the Marc Rich pardon and overrode the recommendation of career attorneys to give Bill Clinton a favorable recommendation on the pardon of 16 Puerto Rican terrorists in 1999 could live up to those pretty sentiments, he was confirmed by a vote of 75-21 with the support of many Republican senators.
Holder soon cast aside his confirmation rhetoric in favor of partisan politics. The first battle occurred over the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the elite group within the Justice Department that wrestles with difficult constitutional analysis and acts as the constitutional arbitrator for the entire administration. During his confirmation hearing Holder specifically pledged,
We don't change OLC opinions simply because a new administration takes over. The review that we would conduct would be a substantive one and reflect the best opinions of probably the best lawyers in the department as to where the law would be, what their opinions should be. It will not be a political process, it will be one based solely on our interpretation of the law.
Within weeks, however, Holder violated that pledge when the issue of voting rights for the District of Columbia emerged. It had been a longstanding position of OLC, dating back to the Kennedy administration, that federal voting rights for the District could not constitutionally be granted by statute. This position did not sit well with the new Obama administration, or with Holder personally. After all, Holder has been a prominent figure in D.C. politics and was introduced at his confirmation hearing by a longtime friend and ally Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's nonvoting representative and a key proponent of D.C. voting rights.
Presented with OLC's settled position, Holder opted to shop around for another opinion. He went to the solicitor general, asking a lower threshold question, namely whether the solicitor general could "defend" the Obama administration if it signed a statute granting D.C. voting rights. Clint Bolick, a veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, observes, "I don't recall [another instance] when the Department of Justice went back to get a second answer, when you have a 'do over,' when the best lawyers come up with the 'wrong answer' from a policy perspective."
Another former Justice Department attorney finds the opinion shopping "extremely out of the ordinary." "[OLC] is the last word on constitutional issues," he explains. "Holder asked the wrong question to the wrong office and got an obvious, easy answer to satisfy his political agenda."
...
To Representative Frank Wolf, a moderate Republican from Northern Virginia, the "most egregious" action by Holder and the Obama administration concerns the disposition of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and Justice's interference with the flow of information from the FBI. His annoyance obvious, Wolf explains that he sent multiple letters to Holder asking a list of questions concerning the potential release of detainees, and in particular about the Uighurs, who news reports suggested at one point were about to be released in Northern Virginia. He was rebuffed: "I'm the ranking member, and I can't get them to answer a question." Wolf says that the Justice Department even went so far as to forbid FBI briefings with his office unless a Justice Department representative was present, which he terms "outrageous." He received one briefing from the FBI, but "then the political guy came in and chilled the entire meeting."
Commissars sitting in to control meetings? Who would have beli- oh, never mind.
There's a whole section on the decision to drop prosecution of the Black Panthers for voter intimidation, including this:
One cannot read through the correspondence without concluding that Holder's Justice Department is grasping at straws to defend a decision made for a purpose it wants to conceal. Positions never before used by the civil rights division have been tossed about, in contradiction of previous case law and department policy. While the Justice Department has cited the First Amendment rights of the Panthers, it had never before accepted such a defense in a case of voter intimidation. (Steve Rosenbaum himself once filed a voter intimidation claim against Jesse Helms and the North Carolina state Republican party for merely sending a postcard memo, normally quintessential protected political speech, which the department found misleading.) And while the Justice Department seems bent on coming up with excuses for the New Black Panther party, the department took an entirely different approach in Pima County, Arizona, where the presence of Minutemen legally carrying firearms on Election Day set off more than a half dozen visits by the Justice Department and multiple inquiries.
Observers remain baffled as to the reason for the dismissal. Some wonder if a Philadelphia politician weighed in. Others speculate that the Obama administration fears offending allies in the African-American community or simply recoiled against the notion that civil rights laws originally designed to prosecute white segregationists might be applied to a militant African-American organization.
Because you're only supposed to use it to prosecute white racists, I guess. And voter intimidation by politicially-correct thugs is ok to these bigots.
But, as one former Justice official notes, although charges of "political meddling" were constantly raised in the Bush administration, "to date the inspector general has never found a single case dropped or instituted due to political interference. Already [during the Obama administration] we have a case--the New Black Panther case--in which actual politicization occurred."
Hope! Change!! Transparency!!! And bigots and fools in charge of the Justice Department.
Both in Congress and among a number of current and former Justice Department employees is a growing concern that the Obama administration is politicizing the department in ways the Bush team never imagined. A former Justice employee cautions that every administration has the right and the obligation to set policy. "Elections have consequences," he affirms. But he thinks that the Obama administration has gone beyond policy reversals and is interfering with prosecutorial decisions, staffing the department with unqualified personnel, and invoking privilege to thwart proper congressional oversight and public scrutiny.
...
While some conservatives doubted that the man who helped facilitate the Marc Rich pardon and overrode the recommendation of career attorneys to give Bill Clinton a favorable recommendation on the pardon of 16 Puerto Rican terrorists in 1999 could live up to those pretty sentiments, he was confirmed by a vote of 75-21 with the support of many Republican senators.
Holder soon cast aside his confirmation rhetoric in favor of partisan politics. The first battle occurred over the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the elite group within the Justice Department that wrestles with difficult constitutional analysis and acts as the constitutional arbitrator for the entire administration. During his confirmation hearing Holder specifically pledged,
We don't change OLC opinions simply because a new administration takes over. The review that we would conduct would be a substantive one and reflect the best opinions of probably the best lawyers in the department as to where the law would be, what their opinions should be. It will not be a political process, it will be one based solely on our interpretation of the law.
Within weeks, however, Holder violated that pledge when the issue of voting rights for the District of Columbia emerged. It had been a longstanding position of OLC, dating back to the Kennedy administration, that federal voting rights for the District could not constitutionally be granted by statute. This position did not sit well with the new Obama administration, or with Holder personally. After all, Holder has been a prominent figure in D.C. politics and was introduced at his confirmation hearing by a longtime friend and ally Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's nonvoting representative and a key proponent of D.C. voting rights.
Presented with OLC's settled position, Holder opted to shop around for another opinion. He went to the solicitor general, asking a lower threshold question, namely whether the solicitor general could "defend" the Obama administration if it signed a statute granting D.C. voting rights. Clint Bolick, a veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, observes, "I don't recall [another instance] when the Department of Justice went back to get a second answer, when you have a 'do over,' when the best lawyers come up with the 'wrong answer' from a policy perspective."
Another former Justice Department attorney finds the opinion shopping "extremely out of the ordinary." "[OLC] is the last word on constitutional issues," he explains. "Holder asked the wrong question to the wrong office and got an obvious, easy answer to satisfy his political agenda."
...
To Representative Frank Wolf, a moderate Republican from Northern Virginia, the "most egregious" action by Holder and the Obama administration concerns the disposition of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and Justice's interference with the flow of information from the FBI. His annoyance obvious, Wolf explains that he sent multiple letters to Holder asking a list of questions concerning the potential release of detainees, and in particular about the Uighurs, who news reports suggested at one point were about to be released in Northern Virginia. He was rebuffed: "I'm the ranking member, and I can't get them to answer a question." Wolf says that the Justice Department even went so far as to forbid FBI briefings with his office unless a Justice Department representative was present, which he terms "outrageous." He received one briefing from the FBI, but "then the political guy came in and chilled the entire meeting."
Commissars sitting in to control meetings? Who would have beli- oh, never mind.
There's a whole section on the decision to drop prosecution of the Black Panthers for voter intimidation, including this:
One cannot read through the correspondence without concluding that Holder's Justice Department is grasping at straws to defend a decision made for a purpose it wants to conceal. Positions never before used by the civil rights division have been tossed about, in contradiction of previous case law and department policy. While the Justice Department has cited the First Amendment rights of the Panthers, it had never before accepted such a defense in a case of voter intimidation. (Steve Rosenbaum himself once filed a voter intimidation claim against Jesse Helms and the North Carolina state Republican party for merely sending a postcard memo, normally quintessential protected political speech, which the department found misleading.) And while the Justice Department seems bent on coming up with excuses for the New Black Panther party, the department took an entirely different approach in Pima County, Arizona, where the presence of Minutemen legally carrying firearms on Election Day set off more than a half dozen visits by the Justice Department and multiple inquiries.
Observers remain baffled as to the reason for the dismissal. Some wonder if a Philadelphia politician weighed in. Others speculate that the Obama administration fears offending allies in the African-American community or simply recoiled against the notion that civil rights laws originally designed to prosecute white segregationists might be applied to a militant African-American organization.
Because you're only supposed to use it to prosecute white racists, I guess. And voter intimidation by politicially-correct thugs is ok to these bigots.
But, as one former Justice official notes, although charges of "political meddling" were constantly raised in the Bush administration, "to date the inspector general has never found a single case dropped or instituted due to political interference. Already [during the Obama administration] we have a case--the New Black Panther case--in which actual politicization occurred."
Hope! Change!! Transparency!!! And bigots and fools in charge of the Justice Department.
If these clowns have to be crammed by their staff to know what's in the damn bill
Ryssdal: Help me out here. What were these guys doing sitting down in the House basement yesterday.
Achenbach: Very unusual thing for these Congress persons because normally they get up and give speeches, but they had to sit there and listen. They had to sit in these little folding chairs in the House basement, and listen to their staff members tell them what exactly is in this health-care reform bill, America's Affordable Health Choices Act. And they had to figure out what is it that we're going to vote on here.
"They had to figure out", huh? The Obama supporters have been screaming we need to vote NOW!!!(as in "Before the hicks back home get hold of you"), but they had no friggin' idea what they were voting on...
Achenbach: The amazing thing is that they couldn't even ask questions for two-and-a-half hours. They had to just listen. And they could write their questions down on a piece of paper and then later they went through all the questions one by one. This was a marathon session of about five hours interrupted by a procedural vote at 6:30. But this was pretty unusual.
Ryssdal: Theory being that they're going to have to go home and face their constituents on August recess pretty soon. And those constituents are going to ask some questions, and House members want to have the answers.
Achenbach: Not only is there a political component to this, this is a really complicated piece of legislation. They don't want to be accused of voting for something they haven't read. And I think they also genuinely understand it's historic, it's important, they want to get it right.
Considering a bunch of these clowns have been making excuses for why they wanted to vote for this, by the admission of this meeting, BEFORE they had any damned idea what was in it... tar and feathers time, folks.
Remember this crap when they come home and start lecturing you about what's good for you and why you should be happy to have Obama & Co. take over your health care. And tax your ass off to attempt to pay for it.
Achenbach: Very unusual thing for these Congress persons because normally they get up and give speeches, but they had to sit there and listen. They had to sit in these little folding chairs in the House basement, and listen to their staff members tell them what exactly is in this health-care reform bill, America's Affordable Health Choices Act. And they had to figure out what is it that we're going to vote on here.
"They had to figure out", huh? The Obama supporters have been screaming we need to vote NOW!!!(as in "Before the hicks back home get hold of you"), but they had no friggin' idea what they were voting on...
Achenbach: The amazing thing is that they couldn't even ask questions for two-and-a-half hours. They had to just listen. And they could write their questions down on a piece of paper and then later they went through all the questions one by one. This was a marathon session of about five hours interrupted by a procedural vote at 6:30. But this was pretty unusual.
Ryssdal: Theory being that they're going to have to go home and face their constituents on August recess pretty soon. And those constituents are going to ask some questions, and House members want to have the answers.
Achenbach: Not only is there a political component to this, this is a really complicated piece of legislation. They don't want to be accused of voting for something they haven't read. And I think they also genuinely understand it's historic, it's important, they want to get it right.
Considering a bunch of these clowns have been making excuses for why they wanted to vote for this, by the admission of this meeting, BEFORE they had any damned idea what was in it... tar and feathers time, folks.
Remember this crap when they come home and start lecturing you about what's good for you and why you should be happy to have Obama & Co. take over your health care. And tax your ass off to attempt to pay for it.
"Please stop
makin' things up."
Hey, if CNN stops making crap up and calling it 'news reporting', they'll have to actually, y'know, work and stuff, and look for real information; and they won't be kissing up to the lefties while they're doing that, since they'd actually find and report on things the Palin haters actually have done, and are doing, and such.
Hey, if CNN stops making crap up and calling it 'news reporting', they'll have to actually, y'know, work and stuff, and look for real information; and they won't be kissing up to the lefties while they're doing that, since they'd actually find and report on things the Palin haters actually have done, and are doing, and such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)