An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Archive for 30 April 2010
A federal jury this afternoon convicted Sarah Palin e-mail intruder David C. Kernell of felony destruction of records to hamper a federal investigation and misdemeanor unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.
The jury acquitted Kernell, 22, of felony wire fraud.
U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Phillips declared a mistrial on another charge, felony identity theft, after the jurors said they were hopelessly deadlocked.
The felony records destruction charge carries a maximum possible 20-year prison sentence, which is virtually certain not to be applied in this case. Federal sentencing guidelines that would apply in this case set a range of 15 to 21 months and allow for probation.
Honestly, I don’t want to see this stupid kid go to prison for 20 years, but I certainly don’t feel that 15 to 21 months is sufficient! Since he’s a Democrat politician’s kid, we’ll be lucky if he gets probation. Cynical? Yeah….I guess I am. We’ve seen way too many politician’s kids get away with damn near everything….especially Dem’s kids.
Sarah Palin had this comment on her Facebook page:
My family and I are thankful that the jury thoroughly and carefully weighed the evidence and issued a just verdict. Besides the obvious invasion of privacy and security concerns surrounding this issue, many of us are concerned about the integrity of our country’s political elections. America’s elections depend upon fair competition. Violating the law, or simply invading someone’s privacy for political gain, has long been repugnant to Americans’ sense of fair play. As Watergate taught us, we rightfully reject illegally breaking into candidates’ private communications for political intrigue in an attempt to derail an election.
I want to thank the public servants who worked so hard on this case, particularly the jurors who gave up precious time from their jobs and families to listen to the evidence and reach a decision.
My family and I appreciate the good people of Knoxville, Tennessee, who showed us true Southern hospitality. We can’t wait to visit again – but without having a subpoena in hand.
She’s a lot more gracious than I would be, that’s for sure!
John McCain has a bill, S 3081, that is more than just a little disturbing. The short title, ‘Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010’, sounds innocent enough. My first thought was that it dealt with REAL terrorists, which may have been the original intent, but after reading through the bill, I’m not so sure.
1. Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.
2. Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare.
One that is hostile or aggressive, especially one that is engaged in war.
Now, this word could, quite easily, describe a LOT of people, right here in the USA. There are many types of war:
1. a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. b. The period of such conflict. c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2. a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war. b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
Aren’t a great many of us waging the type of war described in definition #2, A and B? I would have to say, yes….yes, we are.
There is much in this bill that should cause concern, but Section 3 is what I’d like to look at right now.
SEC. 3. INTERROGATION AND DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.
(a) Establishment of Interrogation Groups-
(1) ESTABLISHMENT AUTHORIZED- The President is authorized to establish an interagency team for purposes as follows:
Another bureaucracy? More tax payer funds? Farther down, (d)(2)(E):
(E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.
What other matters? This opens up one hell of a can of worms, one that should NEVER be opened! It’s always possible I’m reading this wrong, but I don’t think so. This one phrase seems to allow the president, ANY president, to imprison, citizen or not, those he deems to be “at war” with his/her policies. Not a real good idea, Senator McCain.
Yesterday, I posted on H.R. 2499, expressing confusion over my rep, Marsha Blackburn‘s co-sponsoring this bill. I had actually read the bill, and naturally, had concerns. When the only source of information comes from a TV pundit, it can be quite disconcerting. After hearing Glenn Beck talk about a bill that had not been in the news, was not posted on my rep’s website, and never mentioned in her emails, well, you can imagine I was thinking we were being bamboozled. Normal reaction, considering the current climate of D.C.
I had a nice, long conversation with Marsha’s communications director. Nice young fellow, who has pretty much laid my concerns to rest. Not completely, mind you, but many questions were answered. I can officially blame him for the folks in the 7th District NOT being informed of this bill. Yes, there are some people in D.C. who still do take responsibility. Surprising, I know, but there it is. Would have been nice if there had been something on the website though. I’m wondering if I can blame him for that, too? Hmm….
Marsha’s support of this bill makes perfect sense when you take into consideration that, although, Puerto Rico receives federal funds, aka taxpayer money, the residents do not pay into those funds through the federal income tax. Definitely a take, and no give, relationship. They vote, they serve in the armed forces, receive aid, yet contribute little to the treasury. This is a large drain of money. (Think ObamaCare. )
The way the bill originally read, it was not clear this was only the first vote that would be taken. A second vote is needed. THAT is the important vote, to my understanding. It will be on whether or not Puerto Rico should become a state, and contribute to national funds, or become an independent nation. It’s all about self determination, and I think most of us can agree, being self determining is a good thing (even though we’re being denied said self determination in many areas right now).
I read the bill again a short time ago, and noticed a major change:
Section 3 (e)
(1) ensure that all ballots used for any plebiscite held under this Act include the full content of the ballot printed in English;
(3) inform persons voting in any plebiscite held under this Act that, if Puerto Rico retains its current political status or is admitted as a State of the United States, it is the Sense of Congress that it is in the best interest of the United States for the teaching of English to be promoted in Puerto Rico as the language of opportunity and empowerment in the United States in order to enable students in public schools to achieve English language proficiency.
This is not a bad thing, however, when reading this, I started thinking…..shouldn’t that be the requirement for ALL residents of the U.S.?
As to the second vote, this is the one that will determine whether or not Puerto Rico will be admitted as a state, or if it will become the Republic of Puerto Rico, an independent country. One thing I did forget to ask, just when will this second vote happen? Will it be before the vote of the citizens of PR, or after? Now, being the person I am, thinking a bit more logically than I should sometimes, I would say it would have to be after. What good would it do if the House took such a vote before the residents decided if they want to continue in the same political manner, as a dependent, with little to no say. Considering there is little logic in the way D.C. operates…. who knows!
I was also concerned with the number of votes on either side. 39 Republicans for, and 40 Democrats against. I’m thinking that it was business as usual, and many people did not read the bill, or, if they did, they didn’t understand the ramifications. Kind of like me. I’m also thinking that, because of the Democrat mindset, so many voted FOR it because they believe that, because Puerto Rico is Hispanic, they will gain more votes in order to keep their power, so they will have even more money in the coffers to play with.
It turns out, even though the political party is called the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico, they are actually quite conservative. It’s quite natural to make an assumption with the word “progressive” in the name, you think liberal>progressive>socialist>commie. Perhaps this is not the case after all?
So, after my conversation, perhaps this bill is not such a bad thing after all. The decision should be left up to the citizens of Puerto Rico. Considering they have voted against statehood frequently, perhaps they will opt for independence?