Lost in the crush of recent Supreme Court decisions was Castle Rock v. Gonzales, a case that I am about to butcher in the name of simplicity.
This case dealt with, in very rough terms, whether a person has a right to police protection. The facts of the case were, roughly, that a woman obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband, who ultimately killed their three daughters. The woman alleged that she had a Constitutional property right to police protection. Like I said, this is really running roughshod over the nuances of the case, but I'm trying to make a point here so I am going to accept generalities that may be a bit off, as should you.
The United States Supreme Court found that the woman didn't have a Constitutional right to the claimed police protection.
How do I get from there to Dianne Feinstein? How about this...the argument of the anti-gun forces has always been that the police should have the guns and that we should rely on the police to protect us. On this basis, the Dianne Feinsteins of the world have systematically eroded our Constitutional right (explicit constitutional right, I may add) to bear arms. Now, no less than the Supreme Court says we don't have a right to police protection. So if we don't have a right to police protection (which is a decision I actually agree with, as there is nothing in the Constitution that provides for such a thing...quite unlike the 2nd Amendment, which explicitly provides a right to bear arms) and we don't have a right to bear arms, according to the leftists, it appears that the only thing we have a right to be is.....VICTIMS.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Monday, June 27, 2005
Dianne Feinstein: Ignorant Cunt and Menace to Society
The local (San Francisco) liberal media have their hysteria of du jour: Pit bulls. Using a few recent instances of pit bulls biting people, the local media are treating the poor dogs as they treated "assault weapons" a decade or so ago. Every human problem these days can be tied to pit bulls. If we only wiped pit bulls off the face of the earth we'd live happily ever after. Unless they are cleansed off the face of the earth, pit bulls will kill every child. Pit bulls are the biggest threat we face and we must use all of our civic powers to stop them. You know, the typical liberal hysteria. Dianne Feinstein type nonsense.
I've been around pit bulls plenty of times and they've never bothered me. They're like any other dog...some are friendly, some aren't. It all depends on how they are raised and treated. Torment any dog and teach it to be violent and it will be dangerous. But there's nothing special about pit bulls that make them any better or worse than any other dog.
The odds of being hurt by a pit bull? Probably about the same as being struck by lightning. The odds of being the victim of a crime committed by a human? Depending on where you live, pretty good. What is beyond question is that you are far more likely to be hurt by a person than by a dog. Yet if we were to try to ban certain people who tend to commit a disproportionate amount of crime, the liberals would go nuts. Without a doubt, such action would reduce crime. But if a dog bites a person? BAN THE ENTIRE BREED! Liberal stupidity, 101.
Which of these really would be more likely to cause harm to YOU?
Saturday, June 25, 2005
That Ignorant Cunt Dianne Feinstein Is Going To Steal Your House!
This week, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London. There's plenty of information on this case elsewhere so I won't go over the facts and what others have said.
In brief, this case was about a local government taking (in the 5th Amendment sense) private property and the constitutional limits governing that action. The city in this case argued that it had a right to take the private property and hand it over to private developers who were going to engage in private development with that land. The city's claim was that the private development of the property was ultimately going to benefit the public through greater tax revenue and job creation, and thus it was a legitimate act for constitutional purposes.
The majority of the Court decided in favor of the city, agreeing with the city's view of the Fifth Amendment. Justices O'Connor and Thomas, in separate dissents, got the law right. O'Connor's dissent hit the nail on the head with these points:
Bingo. The takings clause has just become the commerce clause (which is the basis for the expansion of federal powers outside of those enumerated in the Constitution...i.e., an attack on the rights of the states). Just as the commerce clause decisions created a near universal federal power over anything under the sun, so long as some tie could be found between the law and interstate commerce (e.g., growing a crop on your own land for your own consumption is subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause because it affects interstate commerce by reducing demand for agriculture products...), the Kelo decision will give government the ominpotent power to take private property without real limitation.
The most important point of O'Connor's dissent is this:
Her point can be simplified as follows: The Kelo decision is based on the assumption that local governments have the best opportunity to decide whether a public use is being served by a taking and thus the local governments should have broad powers to make such decisions, without the Court imposing restrictive standards to protect private owners. On paper, this sounds good. If it were only the case that local governments were above special interests and payoffs, the decision would be fine. But the reality is that local governments are often the worst enemy of the people.
I used to live in Oakland, California and the local government of that city, especially under the disgusting scumbag mayor Jerry Brown, was one of the most corrupt entities I'd ever dealt with. Developers were able to manipulate planning commissions and politicians with payoffs and special deals, resulting in the destruction of the environment and severe infringements on the quality of life for taxpayers and residents. I witnessed developers trampling on the property rights of adjoining landowners, engaging in shoddy workmanship and unethical behaviour and complained to the city. The city ignored all complaints. Why? Because the developers were lining the pockets of the city. The city didn't care about the effects of the substandard development (that will cause problems like landslides down the line) because the city will just tell the then current owners that it's private property and not the city's problem.
The point of this is that the city's leaders only care about currying favor with developers to get contributions and expanding the tax base through new construction. They don't care about preserving the environment or preserving and protecting the character of an area. They don't care that, for example, the house that you grew up in has special meaning to you. If it were up to the city, every square inch of open space would be paved over and turned into high rises and factories.
So now, the cities have the power to take ANY private property and turn it into whatever they think will generate the highest returns for the city. The practical effect of this is that a city can take a single family house on a nice lot and sell it to a developer who wants to put a multi family residence on the lot.
Have no doubt, cities are now going to use their unlimited power to confiscate private property and they're going to use it for the only purpose that matters to them: to maximize tax revenue. Your house doesn't generate as much tax revenue as a factory or a high rise apartment building. So while there may be some cities that have ethical standards, those like the leftist shithole of Oakland, where special interests run all, will use this power. In Oakland, the racist leaders who love to exploit the relatively well off white minority in the hills for the benefit of the crack addled negroes in the lowlands are going to have a field day.
And a special note about Justic Thomas' dissent...it was, once again, a brilliant bit of legal work. Read it. Here's an excerpt:
and
This decison was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. It's right in line with the "fuck individual rights" mantra of the left wing Democrats like that ignorant cunt Dianne Feinstein. It's amazing that this Court, the one that the idiotic left claimed was a right wing tool, continues to make decisions that are so clearly left wing (see, e.g., the affirmative action and gay rights cases from prior years).
In brief, this case was about a local government taking (in the 5th Amendment sense) private property and the constitutional limits governing that action. The city in this case argued that it had a right to take the private property and hand it over to private developers who were going to engage in private development with that land. The city's claim was that the private development of the property was ultimately going to benefit the public through greater tax revenue and job creation, and thus it was a legitimate act for constitutional purposes.
The majority of the Court decided in favor of the city, agreeing with the city's view of the Fifth Amendment. Justices O'Connor and Thomas, in separate dissents, got the law right. O'Connor's dissent hit the nail on the head with these points:
In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public--such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words "for public use" do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.
Bingo. The takings clause has just become the commerce clause (which is the basis for the expansion of federal powers outside of those enumerated in the Constitution...i.e., an attack on the rights of the states). Just as the commerce clause decisions created a near universal federal power over anything under the sun, so long as some tie could be found between the law and interstate commerce (e.g., growing a crop on your own land for your own consumption is subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause because it affects interstate commerce by reducing demand for agriculture products...), the Kelo decision will give government the ominpotent power to take private property without real limitation.
The most important point of O'Connor's dissent is this:
The Court also puts special emphasis on facts peculiar to this case: The NLDC's plan is the product of a relatively careful deliberative process; it proposes to use eminent domain for a multipart, integrated plan rather than for isolated property transfer; it promises an array of incidental benefits (even aesthetic ones), not just increased tax revenue; it comes on the heels of a legislative determination that New London is a depressed municipality. See, e.g., ante, at 16 ("[A] one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case"). Justice Kennedy, too, takes great comfort in these facts. Ante, at 4 (concurring opinion). But none has legal significance to blunt the force of today's holding. If legislative prognostications about the secondary public benefits of a new use can legitimate a taking, there is nothing in the Court's rule or in Justice Kennedy's gloss on that rule to prohibit property transfers generated with less care, that are less comprehensive, that happen to result from less elaborate process, whose only projected advantage is the incidence of higher taxes, or that hope to transform an already prosperous city into an even more prosperous one.
Her point can be simplified as follows: The Kelo decision is based on the assumption that local governments have the best opportunity to decide whether a public use is being served by a taking and thus the local governments should have broad powers to make such decisions, without the Court imposing restrictive standards to protect private owners. On paper, this sounds good. If it were only the case that local governments were above special interests and payoffs, the decision would be fine. But the reality is that local governments are often the worst enemy of the people.
I used to live in Oakland, California and the local government of that city, especially under the disgusting scumbag mayor Jerry Brown, was one of the most corrupt entities I'd ever dealt with. Developers were able to manipulate planning commissions and politicians with payoffs and special deals, resulting in the destruction of the environment and severe infringements on the quality of life for taxpayers and residents. I witnessed developers trampling on the property rights of adjoining landowners, engaging in shoddy workmanship and unethical behaviour and complained to the city. The city ignored all complaints. Why? Because the developers were lining the pockets of the city. The city didn't care about the effects of the substandard development (that will cause problems like landslides down the line) because the city will just tell the then current owners that it's private property and not the city's problem.
The point of this is that the city's leaders only care about currying favor with developers to get contributions and expanding the tax base through new construction. They don't care about preserving the environment or preserving and protecting the character of an area. They don't care that, for example, the house that you grew up in has special meaning to you. If it were up to the city, every square inch of open space would be paved over and turned into high rises and factories.
So now, the cities have the power to take ANY private property and turn it into whatever they think will generate the highest returns for the city. The practical effect of this is that a city can take a single family house on a nice lot and sell it to a developer who wants to put a multi family residence on the lot.
Have no doubt, cities are now going to use their unlimited power to confiscate private property and they're going to use it for the only purpose that matters to them: to maximize tax revenue. Your house doesn't generate as much tax revenue as a factory or a high rise apartment building. So while there may be some cities that have ethical standards, those like the leftist shithole of Oakland, where special interests run all, will use this power. In Oakland, the racist leaders who love to exploit the relatively well off white minority in the hills for the benefit of the crack addled negroes in the lowlands are going to have a field day.
And a special note about Justic Thomas' dissent...it was, once again, a brilliant bit of legal work. Read it. Here's an excerpt:
Still worse, it is backwards to adopt a searching standard of constitutional review for nontraditional property interests, such as welfare benefits, see, e.g., Goldberg, supra, while deferring to the legislature's determination as to what constitutes a public use when it exercises the power of eminent domain, and thereby invades individuals' traditional rights in real property. The Court has elsewhere recognized "the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic," Payton, supra, at 601, when the issue is only whether the government may search a home. Yet today the Court tells us that we are not to "second-guess the City's considered judgments," ante, at 18, when the issue is, instead, whether the government may take the infinitely more intrusive step of tearing down petitioners' homes. Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not. Once one accepts, as the Court at least nominally does, ante, at 6, that the Public Use Clause is a limit on the eminent domain power of the Federal Government and the States, there is no justification for the almost complete deference it grants to legislatures as to what satisfies it.
and
The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called "urban renewal" programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect "discrete and insular minorities," United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages "those citizens with dis-
proportionate influence and power in the political pro-
cess, including large corporations and development
firms" to victimize the weak. Ante, at 11 (O'Connor, J., dissenting).
This decison was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. It's right in line with the "fuck individual rights" mantra of the left wing Democrats like that ignorant cunt Dianne Feinstein. It's amazing that this Court, the one that the idiotic left claimed was a right wing tool, continues to make decisions that are so clearly left wing (see, e.g., the affirmative action and gay rights cases from prior years).
Sunday, June 19, 2005
We Interrupt Dianne Feinstein's Ignorant Cunt For Current Events
I've been reading about the trial of Edgar Killen recently and it got me thinking about the hypocrisy of the American left. Edgar Killen is the old man accused of being part of the conspiracy to kill three people in the south in 1964 (two white "activists" and a black man). Killen is alleged to have been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and there's plenty of sources to find what the full story is about the events (just search Edgar Killen on google.) The basic story is this...knowing that many areas of the south were not interested in "progressive" politics, including the "civil rights" movement, two white boys from the northeast decided to force their views upon an entire region of the country. The people of that region didn't take kindly to what was going on and ended up killing the interlopers.
I'm not approving of the killings. I'm not casting civil rights in a negative light (the quotes are a play on the way the liberal media puts quotes around anything that isn't part of their agenda). But I do have a few thoughts on this.
First, those white boys knew that they were stirring up trouble when they went into the south to agitate blacks. That they paid the obvious and foreseeable price for their actions should surprise no one.
Second, the American left holds up the deaths of these three people (the two white activists and their black comrade) as some sort of shame on the entire United States. Fair enough, it was a racially motivated crime. But when you look at what is going on in the Islamic world today, it's not much different from what happened in the American south. To wit, you have Daniel Pearl's beheading by Islamic terrorists, where they forced him to state that he was a Jew and then immediately sawed off his head. Same with Nick Berg. Same with so many other victims of Islamic terror. In fact, virtually every communication from Al Qaeda and affiliates mentions a connection between their violent actions and Jews or to some other ethnic or cultural aspect of the victim. It's clearly racism that motivates the Islamic terrorists.
Yet...yet...Islamic terrorists are referred to as "activists" or "militants" and many on the left excuse the violence as a legitimate reaction to something or other. "It's America's fault that Islamic activists chop off heads or blow up civilians." If this is the case, then isn't the violence of "civil rights" also the fault of the liberal agitators who went into the south? Why is it that a Klansman is a racist white supremacist but a Muslim is a "militant" or "insurgent"? Using the language of the left, shouldn't Al Qaeda be described in the same terms as the Klan-a racist Islamic supremacist hate group?
(And this in no way should distract us from contemplating the ways in which Dianne Feinstein is an ignorant cunt).
I'm not approving of the killings. I'm not casting civil rights in a negative light (the quotes are a play on the way the liberal media puts quotes around anything that isn't part of their agenda). But I do have a few thoughts on this.
First, those white boys knew that they were stirring up trouble when they went into the south to agitate blacks. That they paid the obvious and foreseeable price for their actions should surprise no one.
Second, the American left holds up the deaths of these three people (the two white activists and their black comrade) as some sort of shame on the entire United States. Fair enough, it was a racially motivated crime. But when you look at what is going on in the Islamic world today, it's not much different from what happened in the American south. To wit, you have Daniel Pearl's beheading by Islamic terrorists, where they forced him to state that he was a Jew and then immediately sawed off his head. Same with Nick Berg. Same with so many other victims of Islamic terror. In fact, virtually every communication from Al Qaeda and affiliates mentions a connection between their violent actions and Jews or to some other ethnic or cultural aspect of the victim. It's clearly racism that motivates the Islamic terrorists.
Yet...yet...Islamic terrorists are referred to as "activists" or "militants" and many on the left excuse the violence as a legitimate reaction to something or other. "It's America's fault that Islamic activists chop off heads or blow up civilians." If this is the case, then isn't the violence of "civil rights" also the fault of the liberal agitators who went into the south? Why is it that a Klansman is a racist white supremacist but a Muslim is a "militant" or "insurgent"? Using the language of the left, shouldn't Al Qaeda be described in the same terms as the Klan-a racist Islamic supremacist hate group?
(And this in no way should distract us from contemplating the ways in which Dianne Feinstein is an ignorant cunt).
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Count the Ignorant Cunts, Starting With Dianne Feinstein
Wow...This is harmonic convergence for ignorant cunts. Jerry Brown, the lunatic mayor of my former residence (Oakland, CA), a man who raises failed left wing politics to a new level, being married by Dianne Feinstein, the ultimate in failed liberal politicians, with Gray Davis, a borderline liberal who was thrown out of office for total incompetence, attending. We can only imagine that the rogues gallery of Bay Area liberal asshats filled the wedding venue. Those four earthquakes in California this week weren't about fault lines, they were about the earth trying to puke California into the ocean before this thing could take place.
Ex-Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown Weds
Sat Jun 18, 7:34 PM ET
Mayor Jerry Brown, who was twice elected California governor and ran for president three times, ended one of the longest bachelor streaks in American politics Saturday, marrying longtime girlfriend Anne Gust.
It was the first marriage for Gust, 47, a former Gap executive, as well as for Brown, 67, who plans to run for state attorney general next year.
"How fortunate you are to have found each other," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), who officiated at the ceremony. "What a treasure it is to have a companion for life."
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Dianne Feinstein, going the extra mile to prove that ignorant cunts from the Bay Area love terrorists
From a 6/12/05 story on a Time magazine article that discloses, horror of horrors, that US forces did things like force terrorists to stand while being interrogated or listen to bad pop music...
Message to DiFi: I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DIDN'T LEARN FROM TEHRAN IN 1979. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DIDN'T LEARN FROM BEIRUT IN 1982. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DIDN'T LEARN FROM THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN 1993. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DIDN'T LEARN FROM THE NUMEROUS AL QAEDA BOMBINGS IN AFRICA, ARGENTINA, SAUDI ARABIA, YEMEN, ETC. IN THE 1990s. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DIDN'T LEARN FROM 9/11. THEY DON'T CARE HOW MUCH WE RESPECT THEM. THEY ONLY CARE TO KILL US. YOU DUMB IGNORANT FUCKING BITCH.
Y'all know what my response is to her nonsense about treament of terrorists. I'm not going to repeat my points about how fighting terrorists means that you fight on their rules. Just read my previous posts, below, if you want to know what I think about the idiotic Dianne Feinstein ignorant cunt way of coddling terrorists. What did this fucking cunt say as her beloved Islamic terrorists were beheading Americans? Can anyone find a quote from her expressing the same kind of outrage at Islamic terror as she expresses about American treatment of terrorists? I sure can't.
She's typical of the SF Bay Area America hating left and it's why I hope that if there is going to be another terror attack on the US, let it be on the SF Bay Area.
But more to the point, whenever I read a Dianne Feinstein quote about how awful we are for not treating terrorists like heroes, I think of this:
In case it's not clear: they slaughter Americans and the left is silent. We make a dog bark at them or give them a lapdance and the left screams that we are animals and the worst criminals on the planet. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH DEMOCRATS?
Dianne Feinstein and the rest of the America hating leftists of the SF Bay Area clearly didn't learn the lessons of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton...APPEASING THE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS DID NOT MAKE THEM STOP ATTACKING US. Let's remember that the Iranians took Americans hostage for 444 days during the Jimmy Carter years...Jimmy Carter, the President who was the poster child for sucking Islamic cock, was STILL considered the enemy by Islamic terror. Same with Clinton. Treating Islamic terrorists with respect doesn't do anything other than prove how weak we are.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, YOU HAVE OUTDONE YOURSELF. YOU DUMB, TERROR ENABLING IGNORANT CUNT. HOW DARE YOU CRY TEARS FOR ISLAMIC TERRORISTS AS YOU IGNORE THEIR AMERICAN VICTIMS?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said on the same program that the treatment outlined in the article presents "a kind of ludicrous view of the United States."
"I don't know what tree we're barking up," she said. "It is a terrible mistake."
"I don't know why we didn't learn from Bagram," she added, referring to a U.S. base in Afghanistan. "I don't know why we didn't learn from Abu Ghraib [prison in Iraq], but here we are in Guantanamo with many of the same things surfacing."
Message to DiFi: I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DIDN'T LEARN FROM TEHRAN IN 1979. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DIDN'T LEARN FROM BEIRUT IN 1982. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DIDN'T LEARN FROM THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN 1993. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DIDN'T LEARN FROM THE NUMEROUS AL QAEDA BOMBINGS IN AFRICA, ARGENTINA, SAUDI ARABIA, YEMEN, ETC. IN THE 1990s. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DIDN'T LEARN FROM 9/11. THEY DON'T CARE HOW MUCH WE RESPECT THEM. THEY ONLY CARE TO KILL US. YOU DUMB IGNORANT FUCKING BITCH.
Y'all know what my response is to her nonsense about treament of terrorists. I'm not going to repeat my points about how fighting terrorists means that you fight on their rules. Just read my previous posts, below, if you want to know what I think about the idiotic Dianne Feinstein ignorant cunt way of coddling terrorists. What did this fucking cunt say as her beloved Islamic terrorists were beheading Americans? Can anyone find a quote from her expressing the same kind of outrage at Islamic terror as she expresses about American treatment of terrorists? I sure can't.
She's typical of the SF Bay Area America hating left and it's why I hope that if there is going to be another terror attack on the US, let it be on the SF Bay Area.
But more to the point, whenever I read a Dianne Feinstein quote about how awful we are for not treating terrorists like heroes, I think of this:
In case it's not clear: they slaughter Americans and the left is silent. We make a dog bark at them or give them a lapdance and the left screams that we are animals and the worst criminals on the planet. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH DEMOCRATS?
Dianne Feinstein and the rest of the America hating leftists of the SF Bay Area clearly didn't learn the lessons of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton...APPEASING THE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS DID NOT MAKE THEM STOP ATTACKING US. Let's remember that the Iranians took Americans hostage for 444 days during the Jimmy Carter years...Jimmy Carter, the President who was the poster child for sucking Islamic cock, was STILL considered the enemy by Islamic terror. Same with Clinton. Treating Islamic terrorists with respect doesn't do anything other than prove how weak we are.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, YOU HAVE OUTDONE YOURSELF. YOU DUMB, TERROR ENABLING IGNORANT CUNT. HOW DARE YOU CRY TEARS FOR ISLAMIC TERRORISTS AS YOU IGNORE THEIR AMERICAN VICTIMS?
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Would Mark Felt Have Been A Hero If He Had Exposed Dianne Feinstein For Being An Ignorant Cunt?
I saw "Deep Throat" at some sleazy porn theater in SF way back when, before the days of internet porn, DVDs or even VHS tapes. It was back in the days when if you wanted to crank one out to an interesting image, you either had to buy a porn magazine, find a film, projector and screen with a private place to enjoy them OR go to one of the many porn theaters where you could beat your junk in the near proximity and to the smell and sound of a few dozen other dudes doing the same.
It was thus with slight amusement (to me) that the words "Deep Throat" hit the headlines again this week. There isn't much about the early 70s that I miss. Maybe I miss being the smell of leaded gasoline. I certainly miss all the open space we had back then (thanks, left wing Democrats of Northern California, for selling out the environment to development...this area isn't GOP controlled so don't try to blame the rape of the environment on a party that hasn't been in power here for decades). Otherwise, I much prefer the current epoch. Modern porn is CERTAINLY better than whatever we got back in the early 70's. The current version of the M-16 is a lot better than a 1972 model. You get the picture.
So all of this 1970s stuff coming back thanks to Mark Felt's admission that he was the infamous "Deep Throat" (the one without the clitoris behind his tongue) barely registered with me. I honestly didn't give a shit who the non-pornstar Deep Throat was. Ancient history. The fact that it's some barely lucid 90+ year old guy in diapers makes the concept of Mark Felt being a hero even more laughable. Yet, leave it to the left, they want to turn Mark Felt into the second coming of Jesus Christ. No, wait...the first coming. The left despises anything that is connected to "right wing conservative christians" and what could be more representative of that than Jesus? Anyway, let it be known that the left thinks that Felt is a hero. Why? Because he conspired with the liberal media to sidestep the legal system and bring down a Republican President. That's what they think his heroism was, even though they don't say it in so many words.
Mark Felt, second in command at the FBI, ignored the rules and chain of command and demanded that his identity be kept secret until his death. A real hero would have either fought within the system OR he would have not hidden his identity. What is the purpose of hiding your identity for your entire life? That's cowardly, not heroic. It's the easy way. You can let the liberal media go on a crusade against a conservative President and never have to suffer a single consequence.
Heroic? In what world?
I guess that is heroic to the left, where heroism consists of throwing a rock through a Starbucks window in SF while screaming "BUSH LIES" and wearing a "I (heart) Osama" button or being a "human shield" for Saddam (but being an American soldier is a crime against humanity).
A leftist friend, the blogger behind the desperate houseboy Midlife in Marin blog, repeated the new media slogan about Felt being a hero and how the ends justified the means. I find this very interesting, mostly because the facts of what happened show that Felt was far from a hero. Felt had a personal grudge against Nixon...he felt that Nixon passed him over for the top job at the FBI. So Felt dug up some dirt on Nixon and, rather than send it through the normal channels of the criminal justice/governmental investigation system, he snuck around to a very liberal, anti-administration media outlet and fed them classified information that gave them further ammunition to continue an attack on a President that they had been going on for years.
So far, there is nothing heroic about this. A disgruntled top law enforcement official breaks all the rules he's pledged to obey and enforce to settle a personal score. He goes to the enemies of the President of the US and, in violation of FBI rules, gives them confidential information that he knows they'll publish without getting any balance or counterpoints. He demands that his identity be kept secret for his entire life.
This is contrary to everything our legal system is about. Our system is about being able to confront those who accuse you, to have a trial by a jury with a judge and procedure. What Felt did was to destroy any chance that there could be a fair investigation into what Nixon did...instead, he let the media try and judge a President that they hated. Is it any surprise that they skewered Nixon without considering the source of the information or motivation of the accuser?
That Nixon apparently did what he was accused of is really not the point, as had Felt gone through proper channels that would have likely been the same case. Remember, Felt's source was FBI files, so any proceeding against Nixon would have had the same information...but it would have been presented in a legal and fair manner.
I've heard some liberals claim that Nixon would have somehow stopped any prosecution of him for the alleged crimes, but that's about as speculative and nonsensical as could be. If Nixon had that kind of power, he would have stopped the impeachment, wouldn't he have?
So what we have is a top FBI official violating the laws that he's pledged to obey and enforce to further a personal vendetta...to do this, he demands total anonymity so that he will never have to face any consequences for his criminal actions and then he gives the information to a biased entity that he knows will do everything in its power to smear the President. He ensured that the President would be tried and convicted by a biased media rather than in the institutions that this country had established to ensure a fair and just investigation and determination of culpability. Subverting our systems is heroic? I guess lynching was heroic too, so long as the victim really was guilty. Right?
Felt then went on to commit OTHER crimes and he only admitted to being "Deep Throat" when one of the "journalists" who he had used refused to give him any of the proceeds of the money made on the story. Felt himself admits that what he did was nothing to be proud of and he further admits that the only reason he outted himself was to be able to profit from what he had done decades before. Were it not for his greed, Felt would have died protecting his secret. Heroic?
Had Felt used the same tactics to expose Dianne Feinstein's crimes (being an ignorant cunt is a crime in my book) would the left be calling him a hero? I think we all know the answer to that.
Hero? No. Here's a hero:
Isn't it funny that liberals are quick to call criminals and other scumbags heroes but they just can't find it in themselves to call our soldiers heroes? That says a lot.
It was thus with slight amusement (to me) that the words "Deep Throat" hit the headlines again this week. There isn't much about the early 70s that I miss. Maybe I miss being the smell of leaded gasoline. I certainly miss all the open space we had back then (thanks, left wing Democrats of Northern California, for selling out the environment to development...this area isn't GOP controlled so don't try to blame the rape of the environment on a party that hasn't been in power here for decades). Otherwise, I much prefer the current epoch. Modern porn is CERTAINLY better than whatever we got back in the early 70's. The current version of the M-16 is a lot better than a 1972 model. You get the picture.
So all of this 1970s stuff coming back thanks to Mark Felt's admission that he was the infamous "Deep Throat" (the one without the clitoris behind his tongue) barely registered with me. I honestly didn't give a shit who the non-pornstar Deep Throat was. Ancient history. The fact that it's some barely lucid 90+ year old guy in diapers makes the concept of Mark Felt being a hero even more laughable. Yet, leave it to the left, they want to turn Mark Felt into the second coming of Jesus Christ. No, wait...the first coming. The left despises anything that is connected to "right wing conservative christians" and what could be more representative of that than Jesus? Anyway, let it be known that the left thinks that Felt is a hero. Why? Because he conspired with the liberal media to sidestep the legal system and bring down a Republican President. That's what they think his heroism was, even though they don't say it in so many words.
Mark Felt, second in command at the FBI, ignored the rules and chain of command and demanded that his identity be kept secret until his death. A real hero would have either fought within the system OR he would have not hidden his identity. What is the purpose of hiding your identity for your entire life? That's cowardly, not heroic. It's the easy way. You can let the liberal media go on a crusade against a conservative President and never have to suffer a single consequence.
Heroic? In what world?
I guess that is heroic to the left, where heroism consists of throwing a rock through a Starbucks window in SF while screaming "BUSH LIES" and wearing a "I (heart) Osama" button or being a "human shield" for Saddam (but being an American soldier is a crime against humanity).
A leftist friend, the blogger behind the desperate houseboy Midlife in Marin blog, repeated the new media slogan about Felt being a hero and how the ends justified the means. I find this very interesting, mostly because the facts of what happened show that Felt was far from a hero. Felt had a personal grudge against Nixon...he felt that Nixon passed him over for the top job at the FBI. So Felt dug up some dirt on Nixon and, rather than send it through the normal channels of the criminal justice/governmental investigation system, he snuck around to a very liberal, anti-administration media outlet and fed them classified information that gave them further ammunition to continue an attack on a President that they had been going on for years.
So far, there is nothing heroic about this. A disgruntled top law enforcement official breaks all the rules he's pledged to obey and enforce to settle a personal score. He goes to the enemies of the President of the US and, in violation of FBI rules, gives them confidential information that he knows they'll publish without getting any balance or counterpoints. He demands that his identity be kept secret for his entire life.
This is contrary to everything our legal system is about. Our system is about being able to confront those who accuse you, to have a trial by a jury with a judge and procedure. What Felt did was to destroy any chance that there could be a fair investigation into what Nixon did...instead, he let the media try and judge a President that they hated. Is it any surprise that they skewered Nixon without considering the source of the information or motivation of the accuser?
That Nixon apparently did what he was accused of is really not the point, as had Felt gone through proper channels that would have likely been the same case. Remember, Felt's source was FBI files, so any proceeding against Nixon would have had the same information...but it would have been presented in a legal and fair manner.
I've heard some liberals claim that Nixon would have somehow stopped any prosecution of him for the alleged crimes, but that's about as speculative and nonsensical as could be. If Nixon had that kind of power, he would have stopped the impeachment, wouldn't he have?
So what we have is a top FBI official violating the laws that he's pledged to obey and enforce to further a personal vendetta...to do this, he demands total anonymity so that he will never have to face any consequences for his criminal actions and then he gives the information to a biased entity that he knows will do everything in its power to smear the President. He ensured that the President would be tried and convicted by a biased media rather than in the institutions that this country had established to ensure a fair and just investigation and determination of culpability. Subverting our systems is heroic? I guess lynching was heroic too, so long as the victim really was guilty. Right?
Felt then went on to commit OTHER crimes and he only admitted to being "Deep Throat" when one of the "journalists" who he had used refused to give him any of the proceeds of the money made on the story. Felt himself admits that what he did was nothing to be proud of and he further admits that the only reason he outted himself was to be able to profit from what he had done decades before. Were it not for his greed, Felt would have died protecting his secret. Heroic?
Had Felt used the same tactics to expose Dianne Feinstein's crimes (being an ignorant cunt is a crime in my book) would the left be calling him a hero? I think we all know the answer to that.
Hero? No. Here's a hero:
Isn't it funny that liberals are quick to call criminals and other scumbags heroes but they just can't find it in themselves to call our soldiers heroes? That says a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)