Michael Jackson's death last week and subsequent laudification by the press and loyal fans demonstrates with crimson clarity what is wrong with this country.
in a time where Americans die oversees to spread freedom and protect our rights in this country, our media outlets fawn over themselves; and petty merchants sell illegal merchandise to throngs of people who can recite every lyric, but don't even know the names of those killed from their own hometowns.
Let's not forget that Jackson was also accused of sexual assault on multiple minors and were it not for his willingness to pay off the victims' families, he would certainly have been convicted.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, let us not come to praise Jackson, but rather to remember what we paid for and created by our nearly sycophantic revelry in his talent for so many years. Let us instead, bury all memory of him and yet remember to guard against lifting other such flawed souls before us and our children.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Fallibility
I have been gone for a couple weeks, but just read the defense of Ibs Young by Mr. Nelson. Nelson claims that my logic isn't infallible. He is correct. No one's logic is completely infallible. In the case of the conspiracy to unseat or otherwise harass Loren Avey, Dave Wiederspon and Marv Filsinger, I can assure everyone that I know who was responsible and their motivations. You don't have to be perfectly correct all the time to be right occasionally. Mr. Nelson should see the difference and stop throwing red herrings out there to confuse the people of our town.
I did not attack Mrs. Young. I did point out that she was making public intimations of wrong doing to two men she doesn't like on council. She should be prepared to use the ample resources she has at her disposal (oddly enough, she chose the paper over her own radio station) to investigate for something approaching a factual basis before implying that people were cooking the books. It is my understanding that she did not take up the request of Bob VanVleet to attend the City Council meeting. Sometimes the silence which follows public accusation says a lot about the accusation and the accuser.
I did not attack Mrs. Young. I did point out that she was making public intimations of wrong doing to two men she doesn't like on council. She should be prepared to use the ample resources she has at her disposal (oddly enough, she chose the paper over her own radio station) to investigate for something approaching a factual basis before implying that people were cooking the books. It is my understanding that she did not take up the request of Bob VanVleet to attend the City Council meeting. Sometimes the silence which follows public accusation says a lot about the accusation and the accuser.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Proving a Point
In answer to CJ Cornelius' letter from Saturday:
I never said that the City Manager's Job description was OFTEN at odds with the EDD position duties. I said that there should occasionally be honest opposition where additional growth would come at the expense of current services obligations. As an investor who stands to gain from the growth opportunities, Dr. Cornelius' intentions are self-evident. We all want Sidney to grow and have everyone be more prosperous. You don't have to be the wealthiest or most loved person in town to understand what common sense teaches us.
Perhaps more businesses would come here, if we trained our residents in the kind of jobs that would bring businesses here. Sidney's unemployment rate is whimsically small. The county is as close to over-employed as any town around. We can't get employment diversity because there are not enough people around to fill a new business's job requirements, including advanced technical skills. This was the point I was trying to make in the first place. Unrestrained growth without considering the whole picture leads to an excess of spending in the hope of attracting business and people. In my opinion, we have stifled relocation growth because our taxes have grown at a rate that most people consider troubling. I know dozens of people who chose not to live in Sidney due to the high cost of taxes. Peetz and Sterling, Colorado are populated with many employees who are paid by Cheyenne County businesses. We are stagnated as a population, due in part to the tax burdens we bear. Unless this changes, any other growth beyond that which we are currently obligated will act an additional barrier to living here.
The justification for separating the two positions is to ensure a reasonable check and balance between two different functions of community growth and governance. One only has to look to the current Obama administration and Congress to realize how "well-meaning" folk can concentrate too much power in the hands of too few individuals for the "betterment of all." Pray that we do not repeat the national mistake as none of us can afford that kind of failing at the local level. Sensible growth brings a gradual elevation in the standard of living for the majority of the people in the community. Separating the City Manager's job from the Economic Development Director's office will place a needed check on uncontrolled growth in spending and tax increases without tangible benefits. It is the fiscally responsible thing to do.
His points regarding councilman are correct. They often work in thankless ways because the truly want to benefit their fellow citizens. They receive little compensation for the hours required to do a diligent job and and every councilman I have ever asked a question always took time to respond. This is also true of the City Manager and every department head I have ever talked to. Even when I did not agree with the information they provided or their strategy, they were still as professional as they could be. They are a good group of people by and large and they don't deserve the blind and thoughtless accusations by Elizabeth Young.
Its nice to be admired for progressive growth and community strength. Let us be reasonable in our growth strategies so our vision for the future doesn't become a hallucination.
I did not attack Mrs. Young. I did point out that she was making public intimations of wrong doing to two men she doesn't like on council. She should be prepared to use the ample resources she has at her disposal (oddly enough, she chose the paper over her own radio station) to investigate for something approaching a factual basis before implying that people were cooking the books. It is my understanding that she did not take up the request of Bob VanVleet to attend the City Council meeting. Sometimes the silence which follows public accusation says a lot about the accusation and the accuser.
I never said that the City Manager's Job description was OFTEN at odds with the EDD position duties. I said that there should occasionally be honest opposition where additional growth would come at the expense of current services obligations. As an investor who stands to gain from the growth opportunities, Dr. Cornelius' intentions are self-evident. We all want Sidney to grow and have everyone be more prosperous. You don't have to be the wealthiest or most loved person in town to understand what common sense teaches us.
Perhaps more businesses would come here, if we trained our residents in the kind of jobs that would bring businesses here. Sidney's unemployment rate is whimsically small. The county is as close to over-employed as any town around. We can't get employment diversity because there are not enough people around to fill a new business's job requirements, including advanced technical skills. This was the point I was trying to make in the first place. Unrestrained growth without considering the whole picture leads to an excess of spending in the hope of attracting business and people. In my opinion, we have stifled relocation growth because our taxes have grown at a rate that most people consider troubling. I know dozens of people who chose not to live in Sidney due to the high cost of taxes. Peetz and Sterling, Colorado are populated with many employees who are paid by Cheyenne County businesses. We are stagnated as a population, due in part to the tax burdens we bear. Unless this changes, any other growth beyond that which we are currently obligated will act an additional barrier to living here.
The justification for separating the two positions is to ensure a reasonable check and balance between two different functions of community growth and governance. One only has to look to the current Obama administration and Congress to realize how "well-meaning" folk can concentrate too much power in the hands of too few individuals for the "betterment of all." Pray that we do not repeat the national mistake as none of us can afford that kind of failing at the local level. Sensible growth brings a gradual elevation in the standard of living for the majority of the people in the community. Separating the City Manager's job from the Economic Development Director's office will place a needed check on uncontrolled growth in spending and tax increases without tangible benefits. It is the fiscally responsible thing to do.
His points regarding councilman are correct. They often work in thankless ways because the truly want to benefit their fellow citizens. They receive little compensation for the hours required to do a diligent job and and every councilman I have ever asked a question always took time to respond. This is also true of the City Manager and every department head I have ever talked to. Even when I did not agree with the information they provided or their strategy, they were still as professional as they could be. They are a good group of people by and large and they don't deserve the blind and thoughtless accusations by Elizabeth Young.
Its nice to be admired for progressive growth and community strength. Let us be reasonable in our growth strategies so our vision for the future doesn't become a hallucination.
I did not attack Mrs. Young. I did point out that she was making public intimations of wrong doing to two men she doesn't like on council. She should be prepared to use the ample resources she has at her disposal (oddly enough, she chose the paper over her own radio station) to investigate for something approaching a factual basis before implying that people were cooking the books. It is my understanding that she did not take up the request of Bob VanVleet to attend the City Council meeting. Sometimes the silence which follows public accusation says a lot about the accusation and the accuser.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Misusing the Media?
Ms. Young seems to be agitated at the practices of City Council for going into executive session recently. Citing the school yard bullies she wants to know who are what they are talking about. State law provides for an exception to open door meetings when discussing specific individuals and their salaries or benefits or status. Open door policy may be trumped when personal privacy issues exist. They can't tell you, even if they wanted to, what they were talking about.
The characterization of Marv and Dave as bullies or acting like bullies based on a three year old incident is unfair. Casting aspersions about their honesty without facts backing it up is underhanded to be kind and libelous if not for their position as public officials. Ms. Young should use the resources available to her in the City Manager's office to validate or refute her theft theory before launching it into the public space for comment and consumption.
There are few people who have done more for the people of this town than Bob VanVleet. I know him personally and I can honestly say that the man doesn't hold a bad word for anyone, even if he wouldn't do business with them based on prior dealings. He is even-keeled and principled and he is one of the only brakes on spending in this town. Spending that has grown out of control in recent years and will become painfully evident if the recession presses further into our region.
The implication that votes are cast with no comment by members of council is a prejudgement is laughably overstated. Many times Council members vote on issues as a matter of practicality or the facts plainly speak for themselves. Approval of budget expenses, where a council member is the payee are always abstained by the councilman in question. Read the record. There is no conflict of interest where services are bid for and rendered. If the other vet clinic were complaining about Dave's practice before City Council, I would at least think there was something to check into. Ms. Young's imprudent accusations against Council members do a disservice to her lengthy letter, which has some good points on charity and donation of time and efforts to worthy causes.
I also have a problem with the City Manager and the Economic Development Director being the same person. This isn't personal against Gary, who I think is doing his best efforts as EDD. The problem I have is the City manager is basically a cost containment and oversight person and the EDD is someone who seeks to grow outward. These two positions should be occasionally at odds with one another, particularly in tough economic times. It is my belief that these positions need to work together, but against each other particularly where growth would come at the expense of current obligations such as road maintenance. We have clearly looked to the future for too long and we have crumbling streets that will probably break the axles of the new fire truck when it uses gravity from the hundred foot ladder canon to put out my barbecue fire during a training run on the 4th of July.
In order to tie this up quickly, I would submit to Ms. Young and others out there, If you want to know why council members vote the way they do, you should consider going to the meetings and asking members and others who provide information to them your questions before they vote on these issues which you deem to be important. Ask them if they support the measure being considered and why. Hold them accountable based on your values. The circus otherwise known as, "the Pundit" which caused so much gossip and angst in the town was designed to isolate and remove three council members. Two of them remain and both have been retained by the people, who obviously believe in them. The people have also returned Bob VanVleet to the council to ostensibly act as a brake on the spending habits we have "enjoyed" recently as well. It is about time someone on the council said "no" to matching funds and ludicrous expenditures for items or projects that do not benefit all the people of this town.
Whatever the personal disposition of the member's of the City Council, each has a responsibility to do their best in determining the direction and guidance for the City's future. If their vision isn't your own, either get some new glasses, or find someone with eyesight as bad as yours. I, for one, and tired of the farsighted goals of some that come at the near term financial disaster to a great many who are not, the so-called powerful.
The characterization of Marv and Dave as bullies or acting like bullies based on a three year old incident is unfair. Casting aspersions about their honesty without facts backing it up is underhanded to be kind and libelous if not for their position as public officials. Ms. Young should use the resources available to her in the City Manager's office to validate or refute her theft theory before launching it into the public space for comment and consumption.
There are few people who have done more for the people of this town than Bob VanVleet. I know him personally and I can honestly say that the man doesn't hold a bad word for anyone, even if he wouldn't do business with them based on prior dealings. He is even-keeled and principled and he is one of the only brakes on spending in this town. Spending that has grown out of control in recent years and will become painfully evident if the recession presses further into our region.
The implication that votes are cast with no comment by members of council is a prejudgement is laughably overstated. Many times Council members vote on issues as a matter of practicality or the facts plainly speak for themselves. Approval of budget expenses, where a council member is the payee are always abstained by the councilman in question. Read the record. There is no conflict of interest where services are bid for and rendered. If the other vet clinic were complaining about Dave's practice before City Council, I would at least think there was something to check into. Ms. Young's imprudent accusations against Council members do a disservice to her lengthy letter, which has some good points on charity and donation of time and efforts to worthy causes.
I also have a problem with the City Manager and the Economic Development Director being the same person. This isn't personal against Gary, who I think is doing his best efforts as EDD. The problem I have is the City manager is basically a cost containment and oversight person and the EDD is someone who seeks to grow outward. These two positions should be occasionally at odds with one another, particularly in tough economic times. It is my belief that these positions need to work together, but against each other particularly where growth would come at the expense of current obligations such as road maintenance. We have clearly looked to the future for too long and we have crumbling streets that will probably break the axles of the new fire truck when it uses gravity from the hundred foot ladder canon to put out my barbecue fire during a training run on the 4th of July.
In order to tie this up quickly, I would submit to Ms. Young and others out there, If you want to know why council members vote the way they do, you should consider going to the meetings and asking members and others who provide information to them your questions before they vote on these issues which you deem to be important. Ask them if they support the measure being considered and why. Hold them accountable based on your values. The circus otherwise known as, "the Pundit" which caused so much gossip and angst in the town was designed to isolate and remove three council members. Two of them remain and both have been retained by the people, who obviously believe in them. The people have also returned Bob VanVleet to the council to ostensibly act as a brake on the spending habits we have "enjoyed" recently as well. It is about time someone on the council said "no" to matching funds and ludicrous expenditures for items or projects that do not benefit all the people of this town.
Whatever the personal disposition of the member's of the City Council, each has a responsibility to do their best in determining the direction and guidance for the City's future. If their vision isn't your own, either get some new glasses, or find someone with eyesight as bad as yours. I, for one, and tired of the farsighted goals of some that come at the near term financial disaster to a great many who are not, the so-called powerful.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Ponzi?
Just a quick little anonymous quote...
Q: Isn't government, especially Social Security the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time?”
A: No. In a scheme, the victim has to choose to hand it over. SS is more like a Ponzi stickup.
Q: Isn't government, especially Social Security the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time?”
A: No. In a scheme, the victim has to choose to hand it over. SS is more like a Ponzi stickup.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Carrie Prejean
It didn't take long for left-wing nuts to dig up pictures of Miss California Carrie PreJean. She will probably lose her standing as Miss California for the revelations which would possibly violate her morals clause.
Where have we gone wrong in this country that it becomes necessary to destroy people we don't agree with? We have sown the seeds of our own downfall as a people because we are fighting about what we can get from the government, and we have stopped caring about each other as people.
Carrie PreJean did modeling shots similar to what Victoria's Secret models do every day. Is the left out there calling those women whores and sluts, or seeking to have their livelyhood and reputation destroyed.
People make mistakes and I don't yet see any problem with her shots, reportedly done for a modeling job. The pictures were not explicit in nature and frankly, the whole thing stinks to high heaven for the attempt to destroy a young woman who simply made an honest opinion known during a pageant.
I agree with PreJean: Marriage should be between a man and a woman. The concept of marriage is a spiritual issue, not a legal one. Give civil unions to homosexuals so they can enjoy the same kind of benefits and get government out of the marriage regulation business. Stop giving tax breaks to people who are married or otherwise joined in whatever bliss they choose.
I hope those on the left will have the decency to look within themselves and cast out their own demons and stop being so sactimonious in their obvious hatred for ideas counter to their own. It's a hope, but I hold no false assumptions for its fulfillment.
What do you think?
Where have we gone wrong in this country that it becomes necessary to destroy people we don't agree with? We have sown the seeds of our own downfall as a people because we are fighting about what we can get from the government, and we have stopped caring about each other as people.
Carrie PreJean did modeling shots similar to what Victoria's Secret models do every day. Is the left out there calling those women whores and sluts, or seeking to have their livelyhood and reputation destroyed.
People make mistakes and I don't yet see any problem with her shots, reportedly done for a modeling job. The pictures were not explicit in nature and frankly, the whole thing stinks to high heaven for the attempt to destroy a young woman who simply made an honest opinion known during a pageant.
I agree with PreJean: Marriage should be between a man and a woman. The concept of marriage is a spiritual issue, not a legal one. Give civil unions to homosexuals so they can enjoy the same kind of benefits and get government out of the marriage regulation business. Stop giving tax breaks to people who are married or otherwise joined in whatever bliss they choose.
I hope those on the left will have the decency to look within themselves and cast out their own demons and stop being so sactimonious in their obvious hatred for ideas counter to their own. It's a hope, but I hold no false assumptions for its fulfillment.
What do you think?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Free Money?
I found out that our lovely City Council has once again lost it's flipping mind.
It seems the council has authorized the mayor and the city manager to apply for a more than 600,000 dollar grant to extend the day care facilities at the community center.
Like nearly every grant the city has gone after in the last few years, this will additionally obligate the tax payers to some 200,000 or more in additional taxes to provide the matching funds to complete the project.
Aside from the tax burden, the city is using your money to compete against another business here in town. it is also using tax monies from townspeople to subsidize operations for the benefit on non-city residents.
According to the City Manager, we need to do this because it is free money. Shouldn't the city try to help profit generating (and therefore tax paying) businesses over the non-profit community center that already receives more than 100,000 from the city coffers?
If your property taxes go up to cover the part that isn't free money, is it free to you, or is it free to him.
What do you think?
It seems the council has authorized the mayor and the city manager to apply for a more than 600,000 dollar grant to extend the day care facilities at the community center.
Like nearly every grant the city has gone after in the last few years, this will additionally obligate the tax payers to some 200,000 or more in additional taxes to provide the matching funds to complete the project.
Aside from the tax burden, the city is using your money to compete against another business here in town. it is also using tax monies from townspeople to subsidize operations for the benefit on non-city residents.
According to the City Manager, we need to do this because it is free money. Shouldn't the city try to help profit generating (and therefore tax paying) businesses over the non-profit community center that already receives more than 100,000 from the city coffers?
If your property taxes go up to cover the part that isn't free money, is it free to you, or is it free to him.
What do you think?
Swine Flu Preparedness
Citizens of our town: Heed this message!!
There are new outbreaks of the Swine Flu found in NJ this morning. Please take your reasonable precautions, including:
1. Get your flu shots if you are over age 50 or under age 15. (this vaccine will not prevent Swine flu, but will increase your resistance to regular seasonal flu)
2. Make sure you use a hand sanitizer when coming into contact with others
3. Cover your mouth when coughing or sneezing
4. Wash your hands particularly after coming into contact with some one who exhibits any symptoms of the flu.
If you want additional information, please go to www.cdc.gov/swineflu/key_facts.htm
Please post your comments or incidents here, in addition to getting prompt medical treatment if you suspect exposure.
I have contacted the Hospital for additional comment and offered them the ability to post specific material here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0XdQ--ming
There are new outbreaks of the Swine Flu found in NJ this morning. Please take your reasonable precautions, including:
1. Get your flu shots if you are over age 50 or under age 15. (this vaccine will not prevent Swine flu, but will increase your resistance to regular seasonal flu)
2. Make sure you use a hand sanitizer when coming into contact with others
3. Cover your mouth when coughing or sneezing
4. Wash your hands particularly after coming into contact with some one who exhibits any symptoms of the flu.
If you want additional information, please go to www.cdc.gov/swineflu/key_facts.htm
Please post your comments or incidents here, in addition to getting prompt medical treatment if you suspect exposure.
I have contacted the Hospital for additional comment and offered them the ability to post specific material here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0XdQ--ming
Friday, April 24, 2009
Richie Thompson redux?
A story comes to mind of the protests so many people in town made of Richie Thompson's probation sentence.
It further comes to mind how Todd Nienhueser has been given such relatively favorable coverage by the Telegraph staff since his arrest and subsequent arraignment on significantly more serious charges involving a 15 year old boy.
I did a little background checking and it seems that the telegraph has become a haven for people associated with Mr. Nienhueser, most notably through board affiliations with a group he was president of for more than ten years.
According to my research, Nienhueser has claimed the box he was having a sexual relationship with was 19. It turns out the boy was 16 at the time of his arrest, and may have been 15 at the commencement of the sexual acts.
Whether Nienhueser is gay or not is irrelevant. His former position as a school teacher should be cause for concern as he works around young people every day and should have known the difference between a 15 year old boy and a 19 year old man.
I would have a difficult time believing his story and it looks like Sidney has a new sex offender to add to it's ranks. I honestly believe that Nienhueser should plead guilty and save the people the time and effort of convicting him and let us all put this behind our collective selves.
Maybe the local paper could write it's part and try to determine what, if any, impact this situation has had on the children and parents he used to teach.
What do you think?
It further comes to mind how Todd Nienhueser has been given such relatively favorable coverage by the Telegraph staff since his arrest and subsequent arraignment on significantly more serious charges involving a 15 year old boy.
I did a little background checking and it seems that the telegraph has become a haven for people associated with Mr. Nienhueser, most notably through board affiliations with a group he was president of for more than ten years.
According to my research, Nienhueser has claimed the box he was having a sexual relationship with was 19. It turns out the boy was 16 at the time of his arrest, and may have been 15 at the commencement of the sexual acts.
Whether Nienhueser is gay or not is irrelevant. His former position as a school teacher should be cause for concern as he works around young people every day and should have known the difference between a 15 year old boy and a 19 year old man.
I would have a difficult time believing his story and it looks like Sidney has a new sex offender to add to it's ranks. I honestly believe that Nienhueser should plead guilty and save the people the time and effort of convicting him and let us all put this behind our collective selves.
Maybe the local paper could write it's part and try to determine what, if any, impact this situation has had on the children and parents he used to teach.
What do you think?
Politics of Torture
The Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are at it again. From interrogation memos to calls by Nancy Pelosi for truth commissions, we are setting chilling precedents in how we defend ourselves against our enemies.
The release of information describing the techniques used to gather information from high-value terrorists after 9/11 has created a firestorm of controversy. Despite advice from 5 current or former CIA directors, the President, and his Attorney General Eric Holder, brought forth memos, classified as top secret under the Bush Administration, which show the methods and how they were to be carried out.
The memos were designed to obtain legal clearance for the techniques (commonly referred to as 'enhanced interrogation') so the CIA operatives and others in the field knew the boundaries of acceptable behavior while trying to gather intelligence at an incredibly difficult time in our history. The Justice Department, as well as high ranking members of both parties were apprised of the techniques as well as the information gained from their use, but now, the new President and Justice department, along with Democratic leadership on the hill seek to criminalize the advice which led to the implementation what they are now calling 'torture.'
Obama, who history will remember more as a Neville Chamberlain for his policies of appeasement, has done more to harm Americans in his first 100 days than every president has done to help in the history of our country. The oath of office clearly states that he will defend the constitution and this country above all else, including political party, or his master George Soros.
If 5 CIA directors cleared told Obama not to release the information, it should be clear that there was no partisan play involved on their part. Though I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of Leon Panetta, I respect the courage he displayed in going against his boss over this issue. What we now have will be second guessing of techniques we can use, the possibility that we will back out of other techniques in the future and we have clearly told our enemies what they will be subject to in the future. I completely agree with assessments made which cite the chilling effect the threat of prosecution will have on field operatives and agency attorney's who will be less likely to execute on policies they have been given clearance on out of fear.
Sec. Clinton, speaking before a Senate Committee was asked whether she would agree with Dick Cheney's request to release additional memos, detailing what positive information was obtained through the interrogations. She quipped that Cheney wasn't a reliable source, which prompted Dana Rohrahacher (R-Ca) to chide her that he wasn't asking her opinion of Dick Cheney and that she should answer the direct question or risk losing credibility with the Senate.
It is clear that interrogations produced credible intel which foiled a second massive attack on Los Angeles. It is also clear that the Democrats are increasingly operating like Hugo Chavez and are seeking to utilize the power of the US government to go after political opposition, the very opposition which guarantees their freedom to do what they do today.
We continue to slip into a morass that will become increasingly difficult to get out of. The more people passively accept what your government is doing without question, the fewer rights you will have in 12 months or 24 months down the road.
What do you think?
The release of information describing the techniques used to gather information from high-value terrorists after 9/11 has created a firestorm of controversy. Despite advice from 5 current or former CIA directors, the President, and his Attorney General Eric Holder, brought forth memos, classified as top secret under the Bush Administration, which show the methods and how they were to be carried out.
The memos were designed to obtain legal clearance for the techniques (commonly referred to as 'enhanced interrogation') so the CIA operatives and others in the field knew the boundaries of acceptable behavior while trying to gather intelligence at an incredibly difficult time in our history. The Justice Department, as well as high ranking members of both parties were apprised of the techniques as well as the information gained from their use, but now, the new President and Justice department, along with Democratic leadership on the hill seek to criminalize the advice which led to the implementation what they are now calling 'torture.'
Obama, who history will remember more as a Neville Chamberlain for his policies of appeasement, has done more to harm Americans in his first 100 days than every president has done to help in the history of our country. The oath of office clearly states that he will defend the constitution and this country above all else, including political party, or his master George Soros.
If 5 CIA directors cleared told Obama not to release the information, it should be clear that there was no partisan play involved on their part. Though I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of Leon Panetta, I respect the courage he displayed in going against his boss over this issue. What we now have will be second guessing of techniques we can use, the possibility that we will back out of other techniques in the future and we have clearly told our enemies what they will be subject to in the future. I completely agree with assessments made which cite the chilling effect the threat of prosecution will have on field operatives and agency attorney's who will be less likely to execute on policies they have been given clearance on out of fear.
Sec. Clinton, speaking before a Senate Committee was asked whether she would agree with Dick Cheney's request to release additional memos, detailing what positive information was obtained through the interrogations. She quipped that Cheney wasn't a reliable source, which prompted Dana Rohrahacher (R-Ca) to chide her that he wasn't asking her opinion of Dick Cheney and that she should answer the direct question or risk losing credibility with the Senate.
It is clear that interrogations produced credible intel which foiled a second massive attack on Los Angeles. It is also clear that the Democrats are increasingly operating like Hugo Chavez and are seeking to utilize the power of the US government to go after political opposition, the very opposition which guarantees their freedom to do what they do today.
We continue to slip into a morass that will become increasingly difficult to get out of. The more people passively accept what your government is doing without question, the fewer rights you will have in 12 months or 24 months down the road.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)