Saturday, June 29, 2013

Friday, June 28, 2013


Braulio Castillo claimed disability based on an injury he sustained at the U.S. Military Preparatory School nearly 30 years ago. The Times reports that Castillo broke his foot (the record actually indicates that he twisted his ankle) at the prep school, but went on to play football in college.

Castillo, president and CEO of an IT company called Strong Castle, reported a foot injury he sustained in 1984 at the U.S Military Academy Preparatory School, according to a report released by the committee. He was honorably discharged in his first year at the school, and later went on to play football at the University of San Diego as quarterback and linebacker.

Seeking to acquire a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business credential–designed by the Small Business Administration to help veterans apply for federal contracts–he listed his injury as his qualification. After reporting ongoing pain and treatment for his foot, Castillo was granted a 30% disability rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The highest rating for injuries below the knee that department can offer is a 40% disability.

Asked Castillo some questions about his "disability." He dipped and dodged, but ultimately had to own up to receiving the 30% disability so he could get the credential he needed to apply for his federal contract.

Turns out he might re-think his application after being questioned by Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
See, she lost her legs and use of her right arm when she served in Iraq. She is only afforded a 20% disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I neither know about, nor have I researched Representative Duckworth's (D-Ill.) politics. But in this case I say to her, "Well done!"

Thursday, June 27, 2013


Let me state at the start that I do not condone Paula Dean's alleged use of "the N word." I do not condone it's use because it is impolite in civil conversation, not because it has any intrinsic evil about it.

As we all know, I guess, the "N" in "the N word" stands for Nigger, an offensive term when used by anyone except a black person about another black person.

If I had ever used the term when I was growing up, my parents (who were both racists in their own way) would have whipped me to within an inch of my life. That's a literary way of saying "spanked." They never beat me. They did spank me...three times that I remember.

Although they were racists, they were also people who believed strongly in civility. There were certain words and phrases that were indicative of ignorance, vulgarity (in the "common" sense of the word), impoliteness, and low class. "Nigger" was one of those words.

Unfortunately, the language has "evolved" to the point that words that used to be "forbidden" are now considered acceptable "Jesus Christ almighty!" as a phrase for swearing is one example. "God damn," or "goddamn," or however you choose to say it is another.

Vulgarities revolving around the product of bodily functions, the reference to private body parts, the wishing of rape upon another and calling another's mother a female dog are others.

In the name of "free speech," these words and phrases have become acceptable and woe be to the one who tries to keep someone from using them.

"Nigger," on the other hand, is not afforded the same free speech rights as other words. It is offensive, and offensiveness is forbidden.Unless, of course, the offensiveness you are trying to forbid happens to be associated with Christianity. Then it is OK to offend.

So, it is OK to offend some groups, but not others. Hmmm.

Is there no one in the liberal community who can see the inconsistency of that thought process? How dense can you get?

It would really be a good thing if society would just learn to be polite. That's all. Just be polite.

Name me ten things that are wrong with being polite. Go on...I'm waiting.

Shame on Paula Dean for seeming to be racist. Shame!

While the Food Network has the absolute right to hire and fire whomever it pleases, shame on them for making Paula Dean the focus of an unnecessary controversy. A good warning and/or lecture in being polite would have been more than adequate.

I, for one, will never watch the Food Network again. Neither will I knowingly frequent a restaurant whose chef is featured on their network. To the best of my ability, I will never purchase a product that advertises on the Food Network (Given my propensity for eating, that might be a hard one).

I'm sure the executives of the Food Network will cry all the way to the bank over my one person boycott. But that is the consequence they must suffer for offending my sense of justice so badly.

Meanwhile, I hope Paula Dean will begin a regimen that will result in her learning to be polite in all circumstances. But then I wish the rest of the world would, too...including both liberals and conservatives.

In the words of a self-described victim of society, "Can't we all just learn to get along?"

Probably not.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Monday, June 24, 2013



We are Americans and we should not know!

We should not know that agencies of our government have the capability to snoop on our phone calls, our E-Mails, our Internet visits and our comings and goings.

Get them conservatives!

We are Americans and we should not know!

We should not know that the IRS sets out to specifically target certain groups for harassment and that those groups are suspected of nefarious activities because of their request for tax-exempt status.

We are Americans and we should not know!

We should not know that weapons sold to Mexicans found their way back to the United States to be used by those Mexicans against Americans.

We are Americans and we should not know!

We should not know where President Obama (the amateur president) was the night of the Benghazi attacks on the American Consulate there.

We are Americans and we should not know!

We should not know that military help was only minutes away, not hours, as previously reported.

We should not know that hundreds of thousands of ObamaPhones were given to people so they could sell them and use the money for drugs.

It would be so much easier on Washington, the president, the Senate and the Congress if we just didn't know what was going on.

Think of it. If we hadn't known these things (and others) our “leaders” could have gotten away with so much more!

Why if we didn't know, they could actually take us over completely and we’d never notice.

After all, we are Americans and we should not know!

(Thanks to  Edward Snowden for portions of the above revelations.)

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Thursday, June 20, 2013


And here I thought Islam was barbaric!


When the government decides to make a rule about something or other, does that increase or decrease the liberty one has?

Liberty is a somewhat more elevated concept than freedom. To be free, might mean that there is no monetary amount involved, as in “free food,” or “buy one, get one free.”

Liberty, though, is an expression of the condition of mankind relative to controls on his life. Liberty includes freedom, but is more majestic and encompassing.

Liberty is not a new idea. It is not some government program or grant. It does not require taxes. Liberty is a God given right (“…endowed by their Creator…). If you don’t believe in God, that phrase has no meaning, thus you can know nothing of liberty.

Government has come to believe that it is the giver of liberty and the determiner of rights. That concept would have been shocking to the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, they set out to keep the government from being the entity that defines, determines and grants rights.

Too many people today do not understand or agree with the framers’ approach to a government anchored and conceived in liberty. They don’t know how to behave as liberated people, because liberty carries with it the idea of self-determination. That they do not comprehend or desire liberty. They would rather have “free” phones, “free” meals, and “free” insurance, all paid for by the rest of the “free” citizens.

Liberty allows a person to work as hard as he wants to in order to gain as much as he wants to fulfill that which he believes will make him happy. That is the “…life, liberty and the ‘pursuit of happiness’…” part of the Declaration of Independence. Government today wants, indeed strives, to limit liberty by interrupting that pursuit.

Government believes that if you work hard, earn a lot and become an economic leader you are somehow some kind of evil person, just because you have more than somebody else. It also believes that if you earn more you should be forced, under penalty of law, to give a greater portion of those earnings to the government for the purpose of redistributing those earnings to those who have worked less, earned less and have less.

Liberty promotes, enables and encourages success and innovation. Government tends toward preventing, disabling and discouraging success because it elevates one person or persons above the other(s).

The idea of “…all men created equal…” has come to mean that all men must be made equal in possessions and life’s outcome. What it really meant was that citizens are given equality under the law and are to be treated equally by the government.

The concept of liberty is the foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America. It was written for the expressed purpose of limiting government from impinging on the liberty owned by the citizens. That is a foreign concept to many today, but it was the focus of the enthusiasm for the Constitution when it was framed.

There were differences of opinion as to which things the government would be restricted from doing, but in the end, it came together as the greatest document ever written by the hand of man.

Today’s government believes it is smarter than the people and should dictate the kinds of toilets they can use, the kinds of light bulbs they can use, the kinds of cars they can drive and the kinds of toasters they can use.

That is the antitheses of liberty.

The United States of America was conceived in liberty. The question is, how far from the concept of liberty will it stray?

Liberalism eschews liberty, considering it adjustable. Conservatism champions it, considering it absolute.

Monday, June 17, 2013


I would comment, but I just can't find the words to express my utter contempt for the people "running" our IRS and other government agencies.

Saturday, June 15, 2013


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

So were the words of Abraham Lincoln.

You have to feel sorry for Lincoln. There were so many things he did not know, so many things he could not foresee.

Lincoln did not know that a public official, in a public place, speaking for a government should not mention or invoke God. He was just too unsophisticated to realize that the Constitution forbids such a thing.

He could not have realized that the freedom being born would have such a short life-span, that the government itself would usurp those freedoms under various guises of "for the good of the people."

Lincoln could not have known that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" would become people of the government, by the government, for the government.

He could not have known that his wish for a government that serves at the will of the people would morph into a people who serve the government.

Lincoln could not have known that the government he envisioned would, indeed, perish from the face of the earth.

He could not have known that "these dead" actually died in vain because that for which they died has died, too.

While people today recoil at the thought of the federal government developing the ability to spy on every aspect of their electronic behavior, they are perfectly fine with the actual spying itself. 

It seems to be OK with people for the IRS to target any group they think does not conform to their notion of support for the government.

They seem to think it OK for the federal  government to infringe on their free speech rights if those rights are interpreted to mean the mention of God, or Jesus in a public place.

They seem to be OK with the federal  government charged with protecting them from attack by foreign entities think nothing of trying to protect them from themselves.

The federal government has become like the anchor of a cruise ship attached to a canoe with a short rope.

And it is bound and determined to sink us all.

Friday, June 14, 2013


Come on in from the cold.
Attacking the Second Amendment affected gun owners, but most other people didn't think it was important.

Having gotten away with that one, they decided to take on the First Amendment, by interfering with the freedom of the press. If you weren't a reporter, you probably raised an eyebrow, but didn't really think much of it.

The Fourth Amendment restricts government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of peoples’ houses, papers and effects.

But our government has decided that this, too, is not such an important amendment if there is something they want to do that violates it.

Why should you care? Nobody has searched or seized anything of yours. Well don't be so quick to think that.

With the exposure of the mismanagement and corruption in the IRS now showing up, aren't we better served to open our eyes and ears and pay attention?

After all, the IRS demands that we be straight with the way we report our income. And if we take deductions on our return, we’d better be ready to back up our deductions with receipts and other corroborating evidence or we face trouble, fines and/or imprisonment. I've been there. I know.

This same IRS has engaged in targeting conservatives just for being conservatives. In other words, they have tried to trap anyone who disagrees with the government’s political views. And they intended to snuff out their dissent.

Now we learn that they have provided themselves with $50,000.00 in lavish parties and get-togethers at taxpayer expense. They had first class, even upgraded plush hotels rooms and auditoriums in which to amuse themselves at IRS “conferences.”

IRS has told us that they’re sorry and that those days are over.

Yeah? Why did they happen in the first place. And if they were OK, why are they “over?”

Here’s the part that irritates the most: they’re not certain how much these conferences cost the taxpayer…they've lost the receipts! But don’t worry. They said they were sorry.

Imagine at my two audits if I had said, “Well, sure, I did those things, but I've lost the receipts.” Do you think they would have responded by saying, “Oh, no problem, my fellow citizen. We’ll just overlook it this time.”

That’s not what they told me.

And what about those jokers who took gifts and food without declaring them and were allowed to “amend” their W-2s after the fact. Sounds fair to me. Doesn't it to you? No? I can’t imagine.

Of course the rest of would be in jail for tax evasion, but don’t sweat the small stuff.

Now we find out that our government has the capability of conducting surveillance on anybody and everybody it wants to. And it has wanted to. And it has done so. All you need to have done to deserve it is to have used a phone.

And if you use the Internet, the government can monitor your every move, whether you blog, use email, use Facebook, Google, download photos, videos, or virtually anything else in the communicatosphere. Oh, but it’s all for foreign users, not us. Oh? For how long? How do you know?

Why does the government need to monitor me (or you) to catch a terrorist? Come on, now, think about the ramifications of that ideology!

And it didn't even help them catch the Boston Bomber…that was a tip from a civilian!

Let’s trust the government even more, shall we.  Why not? After all, they work for us.

Thursday, June 13, 2013


Question: When the framers of our Constitution met to put this majestic work together, did they meet behind closed doors?

Answer: Yes, they did.

Question: When they had completed their work, did they keep their results secret?

Answer: No, they did not.

Question: Did they read the work aloud to the general public?

Answer: Yes, they did.

Question: Did they force their version of the Constitution upon the people without their consent or input?

Answer: No, they did not.

Question: Was the Constitution allowed to come under scrutiny by the 13 “states”?

Answer: Yes, it was.

Question: Was the Constitution debated in every state capital at the time?

Answer: Yes, it was.

Question: Once the document was completed, was it kept secret from the states and the people?

Answer: No, it was not.

Question: With the NSA, was everything they were doing supposed to have been kept from the American people?

Answer: Yes. That was the government’s intent.

Question: Did anybody know about what was going on at NSA?

Answer: Yes. Eleven FISA judges knew. Some of the people at the NSA knew.  Their contractors knew.

Question: After being made public, did Madison, Adams and others assure the states that there would be additions to the Constitution to ensure that the protection rights of the individuals and the states were not usurped by the federal government?

Answer: Yes, they did.

Question: On June 27, 1778, did the members of the Virginia Ratification Convention ratify the Constitution?

Answer: Yes, the did.

Question: Did they also propose a “…Bill of rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable rights of the people?”

Answer: Yes, they did.

Question: Did the VRC also assert that “…every free man has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his papers and property. All warrants, therefore to seize any man’s person, papers or property without information upon oath, or affirmation of a person religiously scrupulous of taking an oath of legal and sufficient cause are grievous and oppressive. And all general warrants to search suspected places or to apprehend any suspected person without specifically naming or describing the place or person are dangerous and ought not be granted?”

Answer: Yes, they did.

Question: Did the NY Convention also provide a list of declarations asserting the same thing?

Answer: Yes, they did.

Question: Has NSA lived up to the requirements of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution asserting protection from unwarrented searches and seizures?

Answer: No, they have not.

Question: Do we know what they were concerned about?

Answer: Yes, we do.

Question: Had they lived under the iron fist of England who regularly used a "Writ of Assistance" to conduct searches and seizures of persons, papers and property in order to gather information they might use against the people to incriminate them, if they needed to?

Answer: Yes, they had.

Question: Did those Writs of Assistance enable the government of England to search and/or seize a person, a person's papers or a person's property without specifying the house or the goods?

Answer: Yes, they did.

Question: How is that different from what the NSA has done with its "enhanced surveillance tactics and abilities?

Answer: It is not different.

Question: Did we know NSA was conducting such surveillance?

Answer: Right wing radicals have been asserting it all along, but have been pooh, poohed.

Question: How did right wingers know this stuff was happening?

Answer: From the context of the actions and statements of the federal government that the right wingers deduced could only be happening to cover up something the federal government was doing or to deflect the attention of the citizens in some other direction.

Question: Now that Edward Joseph Snowden has revealed that the federal government has been involved in these things, and that the right wingers were correct, will the left be any more likely to take what right wingers  say and/or warn against more seriously?

Answer: Nope. They lack the genes to admit they are wrong about anything and cannot see the world's reality through their rose colored glasses.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013


Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Ha! Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!

And, of course, that's just what he said about the program under George Bush...right? Is he now saying Bush was right about the practice and he was wrong? (For the record, I denounce any president of any ilk who taps phone calls without a justifiable warrant...but that's just me, I guess).

I am absolutely flabbergasted at what I am hearing from conservatives and libertarians concerning Snowden's revelations of the government having access to any and all phone, computer and other personal records at their will.

Regardless of his motives, how can we set ourselves up for such an egregious violation of our privacy in the name of safety? Did we not fight for the right to be free in spite of peril? Are we going to trust the federal government to keep us safe based on their past record? They may have the technical capabilities to do so, but they totally lack the organizational skills to get it done without destroying our personal liberties.

Given that, and the propensity for corruption in the federal government, why would we even think of allowing them to have access to our personal records?

For decades we have railed against the IRS for their intrusiveness. Now we are fine with the entire federal government intruding? I don't get it.

If I were the benevolent dictator of this country, I would shut down NSA, IRS, and any other governmental agency that had the resources and power to invade the privacy of its citizens.

When the federal government needs to find someone suspected of nefarious activity, let them set up a system of rapid access to warrants and do what needs to be done for that particular case. But to monitor my personal data, activities, interests and other private, thank you very much.

As they say in Italy: Keep-a yu hands off!  

As Hot Air puts it:

If you can’t trust government to follow the Constitution while spying, we’re going to have some problems

Tuesday, June 11, 2013


On July 26, 1920, printed in The Baltimore Evening Sun almost 93 years ago, H. L. Mencken wrote: "As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.  On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."

Monday, June 10, 2013


According to the Wall Street Journal:

The National Security Agency’s monitoring of Americans includes customer records from the three major phone networks as well as emails and Web searches, and the agency also has cataloged credit-card transactions, said people familiar with the agency’s activities.

The disclosure this week of an order by a secret U.S. court for Verizon Communications Inc.’s phone records set off the latest public discussion of the program. But people familiar with the NSA’s operations said the initiative also encompasses phone-call data from AT&T Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp., records from Internet-service providers and purchase information from credit-card providers.  …

NSA also obtains access to data from Internet service providers on Internet use such as data about email or Website visits, several former officials said. NSA has established similar relationships with credit-card companies, three former officials said.

It couldn't be determined if any of the Internet or credit-card arrangements are ongoing, as are the phone company efforts, or one-shot collection efforts. The credit-card firms, phone companies and NSA declined to comment for this article.

Not ongoing? Anyone want to bet on that?

National Intelligence Director James Clapper defended that program late Thursday saying procedures are in place that are approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court “to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.”

“Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats,” Clapper said in a statement.

As long as it’s to protect everybody it’s OK? Like the Patriot Act on steroids?

We conservatives often talk about the “slippery slope.” Some of us didn't like the Patriot Act for just that reason.

Now we've seen the slope and are accelerating down it.

Let’s see who recognizes it.

Saturday, June 8, 2013


President BO (the amateur president) spoke Friday in San Jose, CA and was immediately at a loss for words. He didn't have his teleprompter and his aides forgot to put his speech out for him.

“My remarks are not sitting here,” the President declared awkwardly.  “I’m uhhh….people….oh goodness….uhhhh...folks are sweating back there right now.”

President Obama is often mocked (even on this blog, if you can imagine such a thing) for an over-reliance on scripts. He shifted uncomfortably trying to buy time. An aide sprinted out with a hard copy of the speech, tripping at one point, just to make it all seem more professional.

You can watch the whole thing here.

Friday, June 7, 2013


1.  Do governments have rights?

2.  If so, what rights do they have?

3.  Where did the government get those rights?

4.  Do citizens have rights?

5.  If so, what rights do they have?

6.  Where did they get those rights?

7.  In each case, who decides what the rights are and why?

8.  Are rights absolute or conditional?

9.  If they are not absolute, how are they changed?

10. If they are conditional, who gets to say when and how they are changed?

11. What are the scenarios in which the dissolution of rights becomes problematic?

12. Are some rights more important than others for governments and/or citizens? If so, how do you know?

Thursday, June 6, 2013


Michelle Obama was addressing a private Democratic Party fundraiser in Northwest Washington when Ellen Sturtz, 56, a lesbian activist, interrupted her remarks to demand that President Obama sign an anti-discrimination executive order.

According to witnesses, MO showed her displeasure – stopping her speech to confront the heckler.

“One of the things that I don’t do…(long pause) … well is this,” she said to applause from most of the guests, according to a White House transcript. “Do you understand?”

The First Lady left the lectern and moved over to the protester. She is quoted Obama as saying: “Listen to me or you can take the mic, but I’m leaving. You all decide. You have one choice.”

You know? Every politician has had to face hecklers. Make no mistake, Michelle Obama is a politician. But even if she was not a politician, she is the "First Lady." As such she has tried hard to project an image of grace, class and poise. She is lauded for how "professional" she is. She is admired for her eloquence of speech.

In a speech about what a great example we should be to children and how we should have them at the forefront of our thoughts, providing them with everything they "need," she demonstrated what she means by "setting a good example."

When interrupted, she left the platform, stood inches away from the face of the heckler, and threatened to take her ball and go home, like a pouty little kid.

What do you think was the purpose of that long pause before concluding her attack on the heckler was about?

Do you think it is possible that she realized that she was about to say something that would scar her precious image, thought better of it and decided to add the qualifier, "well?"

Putting aside the free speech issue of the heckler (which I don't think applies at a private event, anyway), Michelle Obama certainly lost all semblance of poise and class. Where most speakers would address the situation politely from the podium and let those responsible for security handle the heckler, MO decided to take matters into her own hands.

Compare her with Barbara Bush or with Laura Bush. How many times did you ever see either one of them lose their composure like that? (OK, so I generally believe comparisons are meaningless, but I'm just saying...)

Her decision was not a measured, calculated response, it was a knee-jerk reaction to something that SHE didn't like...something that dared to interrupt her magnificence...her Majesty.

The heckler was escorted out of the venue, and properly so. This is not about whether she should have been allowed to shout out at the FL. It is not about freedom of speech. It is about the unmeasured reaction of MO, and it does not bode well for her.

On Good Morning America, George Stephanopoulos, after airing the audio on ABC, commented, "Score one for the First Lady."


Showing her angst, intolerance and low class is a point for the First Lady?

Michelle Obama is a boorish, bully who thinks far more highly of herself than is justified.

While this incident might not go down in history as one of the most egregious acts of the President's wife, it certainly does demonstrate where she is really coming from. 

It certainly is a good thing that she is above criticism.

Monday, June 3, 2013


Maybe I should just
develop some character.
The United States Department of Justice is the highest level of justice in America. Respect for this department is justified because of its reverence for the rule of law. It does not create law, but it enforces the law. That enforcement is supposed to be impartial, fair and in keeping with the spirit that is America.

The integrity of the Department of Justice is supposed to be unimpeachable. It is to be impartial and apolitical in all matters of truth and justice, hence its name: the Department of Justice.

The head of the Department of Justice is also the chief law enforcement officer in the country. Presently, Eric Holder is that head.

It is now becoming clear that the Attorney General has played a personal role in an unprecedented intrusion on the freedom of the press.

You would think that after Fast and Furious, after looking away from the IRS mess and after doing nothing in response to calls for explanations, someone would have gone to Eric Holder and said, “Look. This is getting out of hand, and you’re not looking very good. You should take definitive steps to enhance your image with the American public. Do something legal.”

But no one has done so. The president sure hasn't. Instead he expresses complete confidence in this sorry excuse for a Top Cop.

It all started when the Department of “Justice” targeted a Fox News reporter for simply reporting the news.Regardless of whether you like Fox News or not, they have a Constitutional right to report the news as they see it. Just like Tea Partiers and others on the political right have a right NOT to be singled out for persecution by the IRS.

Eric Holder approved spying on the Fox News reporter, saying his reporting was like criminal activity. This for reporting what an Obama staffer told him! What kind of a deal is that?

The First Amendment recognizes the importance of the freedom of the press. That means that the government has no say in what gets reported, how it gets reported, why or when it gets reported. “Congress shall make NO law…” regarding the freedom of religion, speech or the press. And it’s all in one sentence!

Speaking of sentences, a long sentence is what Holder should get for his deliberate, knowing, and despotic intrusion into the freedom of the press.

Just to make matters worse, Holder testified before Congress that he had had no involvement with such things and did not think it would be “…wise polity.” That turned out to be a lie. In fact, Holder knew about and gave both tacit and active approval to that activity, not only with regard to Fox News, but with the Associated Press, too!

Did you get that? He blatantly and demonstrably lie to Congress. That has become pretty common lately, and seemingly no one cares.

So Holder decides to meet with the press to iron things out, but sees no problem with making a meeting about transparency untransparent. He wanted the meeting to be “off the record.” The press (what a surprise) didn't think that a good idea and turned him down.

Why should they meet with him to talk about why it would be a good idea not to do what he already did? He did what he did and now says he shouldn't be allowed to do it!!?? And this after he originally denied doing it!!!

Isn't he in effect saying to the press, “Hey, you people need to help me figure out a way to protect you from people like me?” Couldn't he have stopped himself and relied on the law?

He presided over an unprecedented seizure of press records. Then he denied doing it and then said, “Help keep me from doing it again!"

Is this any way to run the Department of Justice?

Sunday, June 2, 2013