Thought(s) on Snowden

I just don't think he did it for patriotism.  Look:

The more and more I read about him it just seemed he did this out of ego.  I guess that's besides the point.

Hero or no, he did help shine the light on our government's behind the scenes activities.  Namely, secret courts providing blanket orders to harvest our personal data.

While Constitutionally dubious, I normally wouldn't have too much of a problem.  I was for the Patriot Act when it was passed.  Then around 2004 I started thinking like an adult and realize the awful standard that had been set.

But when one mashes the NSA scandal with the IRS scandal and AP/Fox News snooping, one can't block out the more sinister, tinfoil hat conspiracy thoughts.

The bottom line of all these scandals is that the government paints itself as an incompetent, vindictive, untrustworthy, unaccountable bureaucrat who might have a substance abuse problem.   But if you would just give them some more money, everything will be solved...

History Repeats Itself

I read To End All Wars a few years back.  Awesome book, worthy of hardback purchase.  It chronicles the events which led to WWI, WWI itself, and the post WWI era juxtaposed with the rise in socialism and the anti-war movement through the time period.

I do recall the author mentioning that a peace activist was arrested for distributing antiwar leaflets (Eugene V. Debs), preaching against the draft, and speaking out against President Wilson.  Wilson himself took particular interest in Debs.  The prosecution used Wilson's 1917 Espionage Act to convict.  Debs was sentenced to 10 years.

Why do I bring this up?  Oh hey.  Lookit this. 

So remember this: the left is for the 1st Amendment.  Always has been.  Always will be.  They are the guardians.

Unless you are unpopular, have unpopular beliefs, or dare speak out against an "academic" President.  Then your rights are forfeit.

Side note: why do the history books praise Wilson?  Look up his history, his quotes on the Espionage Act.  Clownfraud.

Lois Lerner/5th Amendment

So under-the-bus candidate Lois Lerner was set to testify before a Congressional committee about the Constitutional breaches which occurred in her tenure.  She did inform the panel that she would invoke the 5th Amendment.

Which is fine.  She has that right.  The irrational side of one's brain might get a little interested as to why, but the rational side would think in our lawyered up culture that this move might mean nothing.

Then, for reasons unknown at this point, she decided read a prepared statement (h/t: Volokh) before invoking the 5th:


"On May 14th, the Treasury inspector general released a report finding that the Exempt Organizations field office in Cincinnati, Ohio used inappropriate criteria to identify for further review applications from organizations that planned to engage in political activity, which may mean that they did not qualify for tax exemption.

On that same day, the Department of Justice launched an investigation into the matters described in the inspector general’s report. In addition, members of this committee have accused me of providing false information when I responded to questions about the IRS processing of applications for tax exemption.

I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.

And while I would very much like to answer the committee’s questions today, I’ve been advised by my counsel to assert my Constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject matter of this hearing.

After very careful consideration, I’ve decided to follow my counsel’s advice, and not testify or answer any of the questions today.

Because I’m asserting my right not to testify, I know that some people will assume that I’ve done something wrong. I have not."

I am not a crimlaw specialist, or even a lawyer for that matter.  But her statement seemed wholly unnecessary to me.  In my dealings with IP law I've learned to keep my statements concise.  Less is more.  "Methinks the lady doth protest too much", and all that.

Some other thoughts:

• Her representation should have insisted to the point of leaving that she should not make a statement.  Not just for the above paragraph, but that she was hiding behind the 5th but potentially asserting facts.  This is a no-no.  Think about Lerner's move this way-you get a witness that only gets to testify for the defense.  So what I am saying is her lawyer sucks.
• Her statement shows incredible ego.  My insane theory is that she had a much longer speech to make, and her lawyer compromised.
• This woman is to head the implementation of the ACA and screws up something as simple as keeping her fool mouth shut.

Head over to Volokh for the more in depth "facts vs. legal assertions" debate.  One can make a case either way.

My opinion? I agree with the Dersh.  Lerner opened up with her version of the facts of the case.  Then her little shpeil went overboard mixing legal and factual conclusions.  She waived her 5th Amendment right, and needs to be hauled back in.

Of course, she could take the Hillary Clinton route and head to wine tasting in Australia.  Perfect troll move.

Squirrel For Yesterday

Branco sums it up perfectly (h/t/ LI):

Jon Stewart, of all people, captured the regime's history of feigned surprise in response to scandal. Anyhoo, here's the clip:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Even the regime's explanation of events is a scandal.  Assuming they aren't lying (ed-*chortle*), the explanation indicates those in charge have absolutely no control over the government, and no clue what anyone underneath them is doing.  But yet we should raise taxes and give them more money to play with.  Because competency.


Road trip to Norfolk this weekend with the WAH and the wife.  Here's some traveling music via The White Stripes:

Sounds a little Beatles-ish.

Enjoy your weekends.

REDACTED

...that moment when you think you nailed something only to get the lyrics completely wrong.

Mother's Day Music

First, from Glenn M'f'n Danzig:

Moving onto some Pink Floyd:

Perry Farrell talks about his artist mother who struggled with depression (and Xiola Blue):

John Lennon:

Enjoy your Mother's Day.

Benghazi Revisted (updated)

Only took 8 months, but we finally got someone who was there to testify.  Let the implications of that delay sink in.

Anyhoo, here is the testimony of Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief at Benghazi:




So lies, coverup, etc.  Although one thing that surprised me was the greater focus on the State Department, and not the White House.

One insane, tinfoil hat thought: what if Clinton took it upon herself to act as President that night?  We all remember the "3 AM phone call" speech she gave during the primaries.  She had knowledge at 2 AM that this was definitely not a spontaneous demonstration, and was an attack.  All indications pointed towards terrorism.

What if she thought the President incapable of handling the situation?  What if she wanted payback for being pushed aside for the Presidency? What if she did not notify the President in a timely manner, and gave the stand down order because in her judgement it wouldn't have made a difference at that point?

Of course, I could also speculate that Obama told her "You handle it I've got a flight to Vegas tomorrow".

Look, Clinton's past has shown her to be incompetent at her job and a cold-hearted sociopath.  I can see her making the call, watching it blow up in her face and in panic inventing the YouTube story.

Far fetched? Yeah.  But still worth talking about.

UPDATE: "Stylistic" changes to talking points.