Evidently, the "increased transparency" in governance has been extended to assertions made while under investigation:The chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee came to the defense of the National Security Agency today, saying that the federal agency didn’t commit flagrant abuses in its program to intercept American’s phone calls and emails — but stopped short of denying that the agency had overstepped its bounds or broken the law.To quote Rick, "I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one." One would think that the least Pelosi and Feinstein could do would be to share a successful strategy for working the press on their respective denials. Pathetic.
But wait, there's more!
Meanwhile, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) of the Senate Judiciary Committee criticized Attorney General Eric Holder, for refusing to declare that the warrantless wiretapping program started under the Bush administration is against the law. Holder testified before the committee today.I suspect that realizing the importance of the case, they are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.
“I was disappointed by Attorney General Holder’s unwillingness to repeat what both he and President Obama had stated in the past – that President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program was illegal,” Feingold said in a statement. “For an administration that has repeatedly stated its intention to restore the rule of law, this episode was a step backward.
Posts
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uKtb-zGwgngQRV4_38gy0YzJHDQ31puWyxfbRPeRkHh6RiWLSlxd_6itcDniCxq0zvX80CH6y5n3dm2ITaVct9ZvXBmDu-RNCPqErniBIJCsDmWreE_UNVPm5cLtmc7wP2=s0-d)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uVGD-qY96Gbrd0Jpq4mwAA7XdIw3WeymiNDAjL4893Zn79uAOPr40QopGZXFMx5onQWPCSQytoxo1XMOvFWvoUGa05qu_zu_Iw7h8VndPGZ6rBf7ql10OWMbkUZd1xBMYLDS3n=s0-d)
4 comments:
Well, like so many things of the left, it is only illegal when the usage, abuse, or such, is not in their hands. Unfortunately, when such tools fall into their hands, they use them for much more nefarious purposes.
If they were police, and were given emergency powers because of a specific muslim threat, they would do the dirty work of politics by directly snooping on conservatives, rather than on the powers to check for bombs. Would conservatives? Not so much, or I think the election would have had an different ending.
I'm not that surprised at this (hence the title), mainly due to the fact that our state keeps re-electing Feinstein to office (the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is still here in a permutated form). They're interested in unmitigated power, but the truly revolting thing is that they don't even know how to look embarrassed about it when caught in the act.
I'm sure they lump "right-wing extremists" and "mujahideen" in the same category, which is to say, "them, and not us."
Ahhhh! Sort of like if the mob gets caught burying a body, and they look at the officers with scorn and anger for have put them out of work. The absolute twist of morality, ethics, and rational expectations. I can go there, in belief of what you are saying and understanding now, that is. Yeah, and they are much worse at this than conservatives (I say conservative as few Republicans are conservative anymore). I suppose this is how they have taken over politics.
It certainly underscores the the thoughts of Murray Rothbard:
"For if the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang."
The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 22
Post a Comment