I learned a few moments ago that my birth mother will most likely be passing away on Monday. She has had a hard life and now will have a hard death.
At 15 she was molested by a family acquaintance, and upon becoming pregnant was sent away to a home for unwed mothers where she birthed her eldest son - and was coerced, as was common in that era, into immediately giving up that son for adoption.
She returned home to an abusive step-father and substantial chaos. She struggled to survive over the years, dating and marrying and having three other children that she would raise as a merry-go-round of mostly dysfunctional men passed through her life.
She lost one brother to alcoholism (he still lives, but is deeply troubled) and nearly a second. Another survived by distancing himself from the family.
I know less of her sister and step-sister.
She honestly cared for all of her children, but through nature or nurture - or some combination thereof - she ended up with two children lost to recreational chemistry, and a third living a difficult existence in many ways paralleling her own. She took pleasure in later years in re-establishing a relationship, however cautious and distance, with her eldest son that she lost to adoption.
In the last years of her life, she distanced herself from her stepfather and as a result was largely prevented from communicating with her mother. Allegations emerge that she was abused by those co-resident with her - her meager possessions looted and her health sabotaged.
I am that eldest son adopted out at birth, and I am saddened by her imminent passing and that we did not have a closer relationship. We reached out, cautiously, to each other - with rather more caution on my side than hers. I hesitated to engage more closely for many reasons - but mostly because I saw nothing I could do to improve the situation, and much about the situation that was immensely destructive.
I don't know what comes next. We'll see. I don't expect it to be easy.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
Support CalGuns & SAF
IMPORTANT: Pro-gun TV documentary needs your support!
Three. Tres. Trois. Drei. 三. Tatlo. Trzy. Tри. Ba. That's the number of days we have left to help Emmy® award-winning producer and writer Kris Koenig raise the remaining $35,000 needed to produce his TV documentary Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire, the first in a series of documentaries focused on gun issues in America. This project will only be funded if at least $65,000 is pledged by 12:41am on Friday, October 5.
In a rare opportunity to share with millions of Americans the truth about gun control's racist roots and enduring idiocy, Assaulted
pairs a high capacity production team with what is arguably the pivotal
social issue in our efforts to re-integrate the fundamental civil
rights protected under the Second Amendment into mainstream America.
Assaulted will take a critical look at a number of important legal and social elements including common semi-automatic rifles (often referred to as "assault weapons" by the gun grabbers), gun control legislative intent and efficacy, how 'product safety' is used as a means of gun control, and will show the ingenuity of gun owners dedicated to keeping and bearing their favorite firearms. The film will also address carry licensing, illustrating how some residents are treated differently than others by some law enforcement agencies - infringing on fundamental rights in the process. Finally, Assaulted will show how California is the front line in the gun rights battle in America.
"The road to Second Amendment freedom nationally will be paved through California," said Calguns Foundation chairman Gene Hoffman. "Ours is one of the very few states that does not have a 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' provision in the state constitution and the California Legislature has worked very hard to set the standard for infringing on Second Amendment civil rights by passing a tremendous number of irrational gun control laws since the early 1920s. Assaulted is a great way to get the message out not only to other Californians but to people across the United States."
“I plan to show these issues through the eyes of the California gun owner,” explained Koenig. “All too often documentaries regarding gun ownership and 2nd Amendment issues show the extremes of the arguments, polarizing the issues and inflaming viewers’ emotions. What I hope to do is to present a large dose of common sense, facts and logic to the subject matter, just like a science documentary.”
Both The Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation have contributed $5,000 towards the Assaulted documentary project.
"Yesterday was a pivotal day for our campaign," noted Koenig in a recent project update. "Many of you took up our call to double your pledge and have a friend match it. The result was a $3,500 increase toward our goal. Please help us continue this trend and reach out to others that want to see a film about the 2nd Amendment and public safety in America."
Don't delay - we only have three more days to help make Assaulted a reality. Please support this important documentary at the film's Kickstarter page, located at http://bit.ly/assaulted2a.
Pledge Options
- $10 - HD digital download of the film.
- $25 - Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire Limited Edition DVD signed by the crew.
- $50 - The limited edition DVD + a "Crew" tee-shirt. Tee shirt will be delivered November 2012.
- $75 - Limited edition BluRay + a "Crew" tee shirt. Tee shirt will be delivered November 2012.
- $100 - The BluRay + "Crew" tee shirt + "Assaulted" ball cap. Tee shirt and ball cap will be delivered November 2012.
- $200 - BluRay + "Crew" tee shirt + "Assaulted" ball cap + "Assaulted" film poster signed by the crew. Tee shirt and ball cap will be delivered November 2012.
- $500 - Join the crew as they film "The Weapons Experience" by 7 Star Tactical at the Angeles Range in Los Angeles, CA. Get behind the camera experience and learn what goes through a director's mind when capturing b-roll and receive onscreen credit as an Assistant Cameraperson. Travel expenses are not provided and are donor's responsibility. Includes BluRay + "Crew" tee shirt + "Assaulted" ball cap + "Assaulted" film poster signed by the crew. Tee shirt and ball cap will be delivered November 2012.
- $1,000 (general) - SOLD OUT!
- $1,000 (FFL) - Listed as FFL supporter in the credits. Each FFL pledging $1000 or more will receive 50 limited edition DVDs for retail.
- $5,000 - Receive all the rewards and Co-Producer credits in the film. (1 remaining!)
- $10,000 - Receive top bill as an Executive Producer and all the rewards below. (2 remaining.)
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Facebook Replay, names changed to protect the guilty..
- GayCynic: Hmm. How many Governors of color are Democrats, again?
- GayCynic:
- Look it up yourself, but...
Minority Governors:
(4 out of 5)
Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM)
Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NM)
Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC)
Female Governors
(4 out of six)
Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ)
Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM)
Gov. Mary Falin (R-OK)
Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC)
And from the other side of the aisle? Looks like the Democratic Party of today is really good about *talking* about electing diverse candidates...
And that's *before* we examine the less than sterling history of the Democratic Party on race, with special emphasis on the allegations regarding the connections between the Democratic Party and the KKK in the post-reconstruction South and again 1890-1930(ish) and the actions of Pres. Wilson (D) in re-segregating the Federal civil service during his administration. We can then attempt to examine just how many and of what party were busy during the Civil Rights era attempting to again (and, fortunately, this time failing) attempting to hold back progress through campaigns of terror, lynching and more.
Any claim that the Democratic party is composed of saints on diversity issues is a bit tainted by reality. Until relatively late in the game, the Democratic Party - particularly and especially in the South - was the party of oppression and fear. Until quite recently, a former Klan official served as a (D) U.S. Senator.
So. Readily granting that the GOP has not always been a shining star in the firmament, isn't there a *special* place in hell for those claiming their opponents are somehow uniquely flawed on racial issues when they party that they, of their own free will have chosen, has such a tainted past and ineffective present? A present where voter suppression is "ok" (as long as *right* votes suppressed) is an accepted tactic of the Democrats? (New Black Panthers case, 2008)...
Perhaps that special place might be the next bench over from the folks who run around falsely claiming military honors...
Neither party has been especially saintly, but...the image was a bit over the top in terms of misrepresentation. No hate at all is required to call BS on that one.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
U.N. Small Arms Treaty.
Well. The final draft of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty has emerged from the stygian gloom of the nether regions of international diplomacy, that foul cesspit known as the United Nations.
I think my response summarizes as: "See Last Post"
I think my response summarizes as: "See Last Post"
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
For every movement, a theme song...
“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” - Barack Obama - July 25, 2012
Mr. Obama, I believe the community of presently law-abiding gun-owners has a response for you... a theme song, if you will...
We are DONE with compromise. We are done with ending with the crumbs of what was once a beautiful and desirable cake. We are done selling out cheap.
We want our rights, and we bloody well want them all. We are coming for you in the courts. We are coming for you in the legislatures and the halls of Congress. And we are coming for you at the ballot box. We hope those efforts are sufficient to make the necessary change.
We are tired of decades of mealy-mouthed apologists denigrating our nation while claiming to lead us. We are tired of being insulted by elitists and dictated to by theocrats. We are a free people with a heritage of freedom and while, as a nation, we've not always gotten it right - we've far more to be proud of than ashamed of and despite our failings, done better at taking care of and respecting our people than any other nation on earth during our brief national history.
In short, we're not playing the appeasement game anymore. We're playing to win. And while the issue of today is Second Amendment rights, you can expect the same fierceness on freedom of expression, the right to marry, and the laundry list of civil rights ill-advisedly limited and corrupted over the decades.
We're done playing your game. We're ready to play ours.
Mr. Obama, I believe the community of presently law-abiding gun-owners has a response for you... a theme song, if you will...
We are DONE with compromise. We are done with ending with the crumbs of what was once a beautiful and desirable cake. We are done selling out cheap.
We want our rights, and we bloody well want them all. We are coming for you in the courts. We are coming for you in the legislatures and the halls of Congress. And we are coming for you at the ballot box. We hope those efforts are sufficient to make the necessary change.
We are tired of decades of mealy-mouthed apologists denigrating our nation while claiming to lead us. We are tired of being insulted by elitists and dictated to by theocrats. We are a free people with a heritage of freedom and while, as a nation, we've not always gotten it right - we've far more to be proud of than ashamed of and despite our failings, done better at taking care of and respecting our people than any other nation on earth during our brief national history.
In short, we're not playing the appeasement game anymore. We're playing to win. And while the issue of today is Second Amendment rights, you can expect the same fierceness on freedom of expression, the right to marry, and the laundry list of civil rights ill-advisedly limited and corrupted over the decades.
We're done playing your game. We're ready to play ours.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
A modest Blogorado Proposal
Ok. About once a year, I am fortunate enough to get to go to Blogorado where about 20-30 of us turn a bunch of money into smoke and noise while enjoying food, fellowship, and generally amazing people.
Maypeacebewithyou and I were playing with some numbers, and came up with a way to get more noise for less cash - a group buy drop-shipped to Blogoradoville. The below is just a draft set of numbers. The other bonus is folks who buy in won't have to muck about with silly airline rules and weight charges on luggage.
Numbers aren't final. If you're a Blogorado Invitee go ahead and let one of us know, particularly if you want to buy in!
Maypeacebewithyou and I were playing with some numbers, and came up with a way to get more noise for less cash - a group buy drop-shipped to Blogoradoville. The below is just a draft set of numbers. The other bonus is folks who buy in won't have to muck about with silly airline rules and weight charges on luggage.
Numbers aren't final. If you're a Blogorado Invitee go ahead and let one of us know, particularly if you want to buy in!
| Qty | Cost | Per Rd | ||
| .22LR | 5550 | 229.90 | 0.04 | |
| .38 S&W | 500 | 240.00 | | 0.48 |
| 9mm | 5000 | 1,125.00 | | 0.23 |
| .38 Special | 2500 | 600.00 | 0.24 | |
| .380 acp | 1500 | 390.00 | | 0.26 |
| .40 S&W | 1500 | 449.70 | | 0.30 |
| .44 Mag | 1000 | 359.80 | | 0.36 |
| .45acp | 5000 | 1,595.00 | | 0.32 |
| 0.223 | 2500 | 931.25 | | 0.37 |
| 0.308 | 1000 | 549.50 | | 0.55 |
| 7.62x39mm | 1000 | 599.60 | | 0.60 |
| | 7,069.75 | | | |
| | | | | |
| Buy-in | 20 | 353.49 | | |
| | | | |
Friday, July 13, 2012
One more reason it's important to carry...
We need to protect our border patrol officers - apparently, despite carrying guns themselves, they will be disciplined or terminated if they come upon an active shooter and respond with anything more than hiding, running away, or perhaps throwing things at the offender.
So, I suppose, it's more important than ever that we legally carry - so we can defend this latest victim group, federal law enforcement officers, should the need arise.
So, I suppose, it's more important than ever that we legally carry - so we can defend this latest victim group, federal law enforcement officers, should the need arise.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
More GRPC stuff - Sidebar Image & Wordpress Implementation
For folks who just want to do a sidebar in Blogger that links to the GRPC registration...
Is the magic code to generate:
'
Now, in the wonderful world of WordPress, all is different. It's not where I live regularly, but here's how I did it on the Alt-Blog.
1) Say any necessary bad words relevant to dealing with an unfamiliar system. This will save you time later.
2) Sign in and then click on Manage My Blogs (top right, on a drop down menu under your sign-in)
3) Under the blog you want to add the GRPC banner to, click on Dashboard.
4) This takes you to the Dashboard or control panel for WordPress. Now, select Appearance and then Widgets
5) Now, click on the Image widget it and drag it to the Sidebar box, dropping it there. You'll then get a blank Image Widget Menu.
6) Having done the magic drag'n'drop, it's data entry time. Fill in the blanks exactly as below, then hit SAVE.
7) Now, go to your blog and test the link by clicking on the shiny new image.
Is the magic code to generate:
'Now, in the wonderful world of WordPress, all is different. It's not where I live regularly, but here's how I did it on the Alt-Blog.
1) Say any necessary bad words relevant to dealing with an unfamiliar system. This will save you time later.
2) Sign in and then click on Manage My Blogs (top right, on a drop down menu under your sign-in)
3) Under the blog you want to add the GRPC banner to, click on Dashboard.
4) This takes you to the Dashboard or control panel for WordPress. Now, select Appearance and then Widgets
5) Now, click on the Image widget it and drag it to the Sidebar box, dropping it there. You'll then get a blank Image Widget Menu.
6) Having done the magic drag'n'drop, it's data entry time. Fill in the blanks exactly as below, then hit SAVE.
7) Now, go to your blog and test the link by clicking on the shiny new image.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
New bike. Is good.
Ok. Been wanting a bike for sometime. Now I have one, and need only do a tune-up and add a *much* larger trunk to accommodate the laptop for commuting - the long term plan. Had my first real ride on it this morning, will go out again in a bit.More on other topics later.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Gun Rights Policy Conference
Seems the Second Amendment Foundation is persisting in holding their 27th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference - much to the dismay of hoplophobic elitist bigots (aka gun-grabbers) everywhere in Orlando this year. And SAF is reaching out to the blogosphere to spread the good word!! So, in the spirit of helpfulness I've both included their message...and instructions as to how to make it work with Blogger.com blogs (Wordpress may happen later. Maybe. I'm less familiar with it.)
1. Sign into your Blogger account and choose the blog to which you want to add the GRPC banner and link.
2. Click on Design.
3. Click on Add-A-Gadget
4. Click on HTML/Java Script
5. Copy and paste (Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V) the code below into the “Content” box:
6. Click on Save.
7. Click on and drag the new HTML/Java Script block to the top of your page, right under the “header”. Release the mouse button, “Dropping” the element.
8. Click on Save.
9. Click on View Blog.
10. If it didn’t work leave a comment here.
The Gun Rights Policy Conference sounds like a really good thing - and if we can help it be bigger and better than ever, I think we should!!
GC
The 27th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) will be held in Orlando, Florida from September 28-30, 2012. This event is sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org).To add the GRPC banner and links to the top of your blog simply follow the directions below.
GRPC has traditionally been the place to meet national gun rights leaders and activists, to develop gun rights victory plans, and allow attendees a firsthand chance to hear movement leaders and make their voices heard.
There is no registration fee and attendees are only responsible for their own travel expenses (transport, food and lodging). Participants are invited to the no host receptions on Friday and Saturday evenings and a free lunch on Saturday. Each attendee will receive over $150 of books and materials at no charge. More information can be found on www.saf.org and www.thegunmag.com
With dozens of speakers, GRPC participants will examine critical issues such as: city gun bans, concealed carry, federal legislation, BATFE policies, gun show regulation, and state and local activity. The 2010 elections will be reviewed, the 2012 Presidential race discussed and recent and pending Right to Keep and Bear Arms cases will be analyzed.
We would like your help to get the word out and make the 2012 GRPC the biggest and best ever. We have attached a GRPC registration banner and hope that you will run it on your site with a link back to the GRPC registration page at (http://www.ccrkba.org/?page_id=2898). Any mentions of GRPC in your blog will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or need a different size banner, please give us a call at (425) 454-7012 .
1. Sign into your Blogger account and choose the blog to which you want to add the GRPC banner and link.
2. Click on Design.
3. Click on Add-A-Gadget
4. Click on HTML/Java Script
5. Copy and paste (Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V) the code below into the “Content” box:
6. Click on Save.
7. Click on and drag the new HTML/Java Script block to the top of your page, right under the “header”. Release the mouse button, “Dropping” the element.
8. Click on Save.
9. Click on View Blog.
10. If it didn’t work leave a comment here.
The Gun Rights Policy Conference sounds like a really good thing - and if we can help it be bigger and better than ever, I think we should!!
GC
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Executive Privelege - A Long One...
This one is going to run a bit long. It encapsulates a fairly lengthy pair of facebook posts that discuss just what executive privilege is in the eyes of a libertarian conservative, a liberal, and briefly - the courts.
Commenter 1: Don't question him, he taught Constitutional Law!........
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:26am · Reply
Commenter 2: How, praytell, does Exec privilege apply if Zero never saw the docs?
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:28am · · 1Reply
Commenter 4: I wanna know where the Oreo's touted "greater transparency in government than at any time in the past" plays into this...
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:36am · · 2Reply
Commenter 1: Renee, and then there's this from O on the subject back in 2007....
Obama in 2007 told CNN that Executive Priviledge was not a good reason to with hold information from Congress.
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:39am · · Reply
Commenter 4: someone in that committee needs to show this to him - and the committee
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:41am · Reply
Commenter 2: Remember, for liberals, history began this morning...
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:51am · · 1Reply
Commenter 1: Commenter 2, if they had a solid understanding of history (including their own political history) they probably wouldn't be liberals
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:55am · · 1Reply
Commenter 3: GC. US v. Nixon established the privilege. n the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government.
The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.
Wednesday, June 20 at 5:50pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Also, "gunwalking" under George W. On this one GC,I must humbly disagree with all those who say it is an over reach. to cite him for contempt and undermine ongoing investigations and undermine internal deliberations for political gain is wrong. Where was the outrage in '06?07? 08 etc? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] This was done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] "Gunwalking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF knowingly allowed thousands of guns to be bought by suspected arms traffickers ("gunrunners") working through straw purchasers on behalf of Mexican drug cartels.[7]
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:01pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Sorry for the rant
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:01pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Commenter 1, Bush did this six times. Obama one.
Obama exerts executive privilege in Fast and Furious: GOP suggests cover up - TwinCities.com
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:04pm (16 hours ago) · · Reply
GC
Executive Privilege #'s:
Reagan: 3
Bush 1: 1
Clinton: 14
Bush2: 6
Obama 1 (but hey, he still has time).
Broken down by party: GOP - 10, DNC - 15
Holder Letter: http://tinyurl.com/6mrxllt
Now, simply asserting Executive Privilege does not mean that one is correct to do so, or that the assertion will stand up. Executive Privilege is not some Imperial Scepter to be wielded whenever a President gets a wild hair - limits upon it exist.
The Georgetown Law Journal in an article ("Showdown in the Rose Garden") that originates in a discussion of Bush II era exercise of executive privilege (U.S. v. Meirs) and the limits thereupon offers a number of excellent insights, particularly beginning at page 174-175 (pdf page 12).
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/99-1/Mastrogiacomo.pdf
As a point of logic, the unpunished misconduct of one actor does not typically excuse the misconduct of the same sort by future actors - making the "Bush did it" argument, whether either factual or fanciful, largely irrelevant. If Bush, Clinton, or any other prior president exercised executive privilege outside the bounds set upon it "THEY DID IT" is not a defense preventing adjudication of the matter in the current or future administrations.
Moving on, it is worth noting that U.S. v. Nixon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=418&invol=683) evolved out of a criminal proceeding - not an exercise of congressional subpoena or contempt authority. Historically, these are substantially different areas of law. Assuming (which may be an excessive leap) that it remains relevant to the case at hand, the telling quote from the decision would seem to be
"However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.?"
At this point, not only has no claim regarding "military, diplomatic, or national security interests" emerged, but the refusal to provide the privilege log (individually detailing the documents for which privilege is claimed and the reason for such claim) No such claim or log appear to be about to emerge.
Mere presidential embarrassment does not appear to be a valid grounds for assertion of privilege; in fact, it can easily be argued that such testimony and materials that an administration would find *most* embarrassing (barring military, diplomatic, or national security considerations) are those which are most beneficial to the public to have drawn into both congressional and public view as a balance against the power of the Executive.
We might ask "well, why didn't the GOP drag bush out into the public courtyard?", but this is an inherently silly question. Barring outbreaks of sainthood (amazingly rare among politicians), the party of the offender will *rarely* if ever drag out their fellow party hack - in fact, it was a Democratic House under Bush that filed the abortive contempt charges against Bush officials. In turn, then Attorney General Mukasi's refusal to move the contempt charge forward in the courts to the disadvantage of his President is a powerful argument for the use of inherent contempt as the proper mechanism rather than the statutory process.
This has been a bit lengthy, but...
Commenter 1: Don't question him, he taught Constitutional Law!........
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:26am · Reply
Commenter 2: How, praytell, does Exec privilege apply if Zero never saw the docs?
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:28am · · 1Reply
Commenter 4: I wanna know where the Oreo's touted "greater transparency in government than at any time in the past" plays into this...
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:36am · · 2Reply
Commenter 1: Renee, and then there's this from O on the subject back in 2007....
Obama in 2007 told CNN that Executive Priviledge was not a good reason to with hold information from Congress.
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:39am · · Reply
Commenter 4: someone in that committee needs to show this to him - and the committee
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:41am · Reply
Commenter 2: Remember, for liberals, history began this morning...
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:51am · · 1Reply
Commenter 1: Commenter 2, if they had a solid understanding of history (including their own political history) they probably wouldn't be liberals
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:55am · · 1Reply
Commenter 3: GC. US v. Nixon established the privilege. n the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government.
The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.
Wednesday, June 20 at 5:50pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Also, "gunwalking" under George W. On this one GC,I must humbly disagree with all those who say it is an over reach. to cite him for contempt and undermine ongoing investigations and undermine internal deliberations for political gain is wrong. Where was the outrage in '06?07? 08 etc? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] This was done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] "Gunwalking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF knowingly allowed thousands of guns to be bought by suspected arms traffickers ("gunrunners") working through straw purchasers on behalf of Mexican drug cartels.[7]
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:01pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Sorry for the rant
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:01pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Commenter 1, Bush did this six times. Obama one.
Obama exerts executive privilege in Fast and Furious: GOP suggests cover up - TwinCities.com
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:04pm (16 hours ago) · · Reply
GC
Executive Privilege #'s:
Reagan: 3
Bush 1: 1
Clinton: 14
Bush2: 6
Obama 1 (but hey, he still has time).
Broken down by party: GOP - 10, DNC - 15
Holder Letter: http://tinyurl.com/6mrxllt
Now, simply asserting Executive Privilege does not mean that one is correct to do so, or that the assertion will stand up. Executive Privilege is not some Imperial Scepter to be wielded whenever a President gets a wild hair - limits upon it exist.
The Georgetown Law Journal in an article ("Showdown in the Rose Garden") that originates in a discussion of Bush II era exercise of executive privilege (U.S. v. Meirs) and the limits thereupon offers a number of excellent insights, particularly beginning at page 174-175 (pdf page 12).
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/99-1/Mastrogiacomo.pdf
As a point of logic, the unpunished misconduct of one actor does not typically excuse the misconduct of the same sort by future actors - making the "Bush did it" argument, whether either factual or fanciful, largely irrelevant. If Bush, Clinton, or any other prior president exercised executive privilege outside the bounds set upon it "THEY DID IT" is not a defense preventing adjudication of the matter in the current or future administrations.
Moving on, it is worth noting that U.S. v. Nixon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=418&invol=683) evolved out of a criminal proceeding - not an exercise of congressional subpoena or contempt authority. Historically, these are substantially different areas of law. Assuming (which may be an excessive leap) that it remains relevant to the case at hand, the telling quote from the decision would seem to be
"However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.?"
At this point, not only has no claim regarding "military, diplomatic, or national security interests" emerged, but the refusal to provide the privilege log (individually detailing the documents for which privilege is claimed and the reason for such claim) No such claim or log appear to be about to emerge.
Mere presidential embarrassment does not appear to be a valid grounds for assertion of privilege; in fact, it can easily be argued that such testimony and materials that an administration would find *most* embarrassing (barring military, diplomatic, or national security considerations) are those which are most beneficial to the public to have drawn into both congressional and public view as a balance against the power of the Executive.
We might ask "well, why didn't the GOP drag bush out into the public courtyard?", but this is an inherently silly question. Barring outbreaks of sainthood (amazingly rare among politicians), the party of the offender will *rarely* if ever drag out their fellow party hack - in fact, it was a Democratic House under Bush that filed the abortive contempt charges against Bush officials. In turn, then Attorney General Mukasi's refusal to move the contempt charge forward in the courts to the disadvantage of his President is a powerful argument for the use of inherent contempt as the proper mechanism rather than the statutory process.
This has been a bit lengthy, but...
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Yes, there is a place for "Bar Carry"
One problem liberals, such as those at the barbecue I just attended have in discussing "what should be gun laws" is that they simply don't know what existing gun laws that are on the books and as a result, don't know what the real world effects of those laws are or aren't.
The conversation began with a very distressed liberal gentleman going on about a rather distasteful sort pistol-whipping a couple of folks after "all of the above" had left a bar, and a couple of random shots discharged in the process - and then leaping to "there's no justification for guns in bars". Really?
Generally, pistol-whipping folks and random gun fire in an urban area are both activities to be frowned upon with great firmness. And, the gentlemen related, the Seattle police performed such grimaces with alacrity - however, he then launched into the diatribe about how folks who own guns should leave them in car s or at home, that there was no reason for carrying them into bars - ever.
The most dangerous part of a LGBT persons night is frequently between "bar and car." Soo...you want me to leave a gun unguarded in a car in a neighborhood known for car prowls? Or leave it at home? Or just hope for the best walking from bar to car in a neighborhood where a couple of guys just got pistol-whipped? And you expect me to go cheerily along with this?
At a minimum, I will support efforts to repeal the WA Bar Carry ban as both ineffective and actively counterproductive. Twenty states (or more) allow bar carry with neither the world ending, blood flowing in the streets, nor a noticeably higher amount of violence per capita in the bar visiting crowd. Nearby Oregon has had bar carry since dirt was invented, and bar carry was legal in Washington until 1984 (and may one day be lawful again). The notion is far from revolutionary and in some states (Virginia) legalization of the carry of firearms in bars by CCW/CPL holders has been shown to actually *lower* violence in bars.
So no, I don't have a problem with carry of firearms in bars by CPL holders until you can actually show me a substantial risk of harm based on prior evidence objectively accumulated in the 20+ states that allow individuals to make responsible self defense choices.
I do have a problem with those who would abandon reason and place LGBT folks (or folks generally, really) at greater risk of bashing by legislatively depriving them of legitimate means of self-defense as a sacrifice to a false assumption.
The conversation began with a very distressed liberal gentleman going on about a rather distasteful sort pistol-whipping a couple of folks after "all of the above" had left a bar, and a couple of random shots discharged in the process - and then leaping to "there's no justification for guns in bars". Really?
Generally, pistol-whipping folks and random gun fire in an urban area are both activities to be frowned upon with great firmness. And, the gentlemen related, the Seattle police performed such grimaces with alacrity - however, he then launched into the diatribe about how folks who own guns should leave them in car s or at home, that there was no reason for carrying them into bars - ever.
The most dangerous part of a LGBT persons night is frequently between "bar and car." Soo...you want me to leave a gun unguarded in a car in a neighborhood known for car prowls? Or leave it at home? Or just hope for the best walking from bar to car in a neighborhood where a couple of guys just got pistol-whipped? And you expect me to go cheerily along with this?
At a minimum, I will support efforts to repeal the WA Bar Carry ban as both ineffective and actively counterproductive. Twenty states (or more) allow bar carry with neither the world ending, blood flowing in the streets, nor a noticeably higher amount of violence per capita in the bar visiting crowd. Nearby Oregon has had bar carry since dirt was invented, and bar carry was legal in Washington until 1984 (and may one day be lawful again). The notion is far from revolutionary and in some states (Virginia) legalization of the carry of firearms in bars by CCW/CPL holders has been shown to actually *lower* violence in bars.
So no, I don't have a problem with carry of firearms in bars by CPL holders until you can actually show me a substantial risk of harm based on prior evidence objectively accumulated in the 20+ states that allow individuals to make responsible self defense choices.
I do have a problem with those who would abandon reason and place LGBT folks (or folks generally, really) at greater risk of bashing by legislatively depriving them of legitimate means of self-defense as a sacrifice to a false assumption.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
YAY! A Walker win...
Looks like Scott Walker is still going to be Governor in Wisconsin - but the kids on the left are not content being sad pandas, instead firing up a cheering section for assassination on Twitter as a way of remedying elections they don't like...
Just *one* such tweet about a Democrat, and what do we think would happen?
Now, how well do you think these Gentle Folks (tm) will respond if Obama implodes in November?
Just *one* such tweet about a Democrat, and what do we think would happen?
Now, how well do you think these Gentle Folks (tm) will respond if Obama implodes in November?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)