brickhistory

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that you were not intending as such, but your post describing the workings of the American administrative state came across as patronizing and condescending; a lecture to the peasant from the 'expert.' (see what I did there?). When those agencies get to, via Congress' laziness and having the bureaucrats make unpopular decisions that the Congresscritters don't have to defend and can make a career railing against "government," insert themselves into every aspect of a citizen's life, well, fcuk that. I don't want to lobby an unelected agency. I want them to be there because they are enforcing a law that I voted for/against. Not one Billy Bob Admin Guy decided I needed in order to make his annual appraisal and bonus better. For once, that ancient BA in Political Science comes in handy. Of course, there was less history, government policy, or Washington leviathan to learn back then, so perhaps I am behind the times...

Indeed. A business absolutely has the right to say "no mask, not welcome." Same for shirt, shoes, or bringing in animals ( for the most part). But for a government entity, without my consent in the form of a passed law where I get a say on it passing or not via my representative and/or executive branch executor, does not. Or should not without a fight. Otherwise, they'll take even more power upon themselves if they know they can do it without consequences. And specifically because of the TSA buffoonery, if I have any choice in the matter, i.e., have to for work or over 12 hours of driving, I deliberately choose not to fly. I despise the feel good, apathetic, cattle-like entity that is TSA and much of our modern conform in the name of security society. Goes against the grain of what we were founded upon, have been, and are supposed to be.

As there is no, that I am aware of, passed by the legislative and executive branches (those bodies elected by the citizenry to represent them) such a law, there is also nothing other than administrative fiat that says I must. No law trumps admin directive. Therefore, there is a constitutional right for me to make my own decision.

Just read a description describing the petty bureaucratic imps trying to increase the scope of their powers at the expense of the Constitution due to Kung flu: The Karenwaffe. I'm probably late to the party in knowing of this one, but I laughed out loud just now reading it.

Man, it is going to be tough as hell for the Aggressors to employ this inside 6' while maintaining their block(s).

In response to a joint filing by the defendant's lawyer AND the former prosecutors (DOJ) essentially asking "Dafuq?" regarding Judge Sullivan's highly unorthodox ruling to seek his own investigator and potentially prosecutor for crimes Flynn wasn't charged with, the District Court of DC yesterday issued an order to Sullivan to explain himself NLT 1 June. This beats his 10 June ruling for his investigator cum prosecutor's finding. Will be interesting to see this play out.

I don't want to. That, according to my understanding of being possessed of the gift of American citizenship is enough of a reason. Mainly because I despise being told that I must according to the whims of buearucrats (sp?). Our administrative state is UFB. Our duly elected federal representatives and executive branch have not passed nor enacted a law done IAW our Constitutional system. Therefore, I don't have to. States may vary IF they've passed a valid law IAW their state charter/constitution AND, if needed, the Supreme Court decides in the state's favor.

Sure is a good gig if you manage to be in the group who decides what that greater good is without the citizenry voting to decide that fairly important question. Would suck to be on the outs with that group.

Time to retire the F-35. Amiright?

Question (full disclosure: not one, never gonna be one, but am curious and suspect I'm not the only one): Airline X has 10,000 pilots. Furloughs 5,000. Does that mean that line number holder 4,999 is back on the sitting reserve or short-call list? Do/can they change your domicile and/or equipment flown?

Since the library has been closed, been re-reading some of my own library: The Path Between the Seas by David Mccullough About the digging/building of the Panama Canal. Fascinating, sheer grinding work with a very high disease death rate.

Hopefully, the unmaskings keep being an uncomfortable subject for the left and the news (but I repeat myself), and will also hopefully result in some indictments. Politically, Biden is going to have to address, over and over again, why he, specifically, unmasked Flynn six days prior to being out of office. He's not an intel analyst. He's not a cop. He was the Vice-President. Why did he make such a request? Given his mental acuity due to age, it will be funny/sad to hear him answer. Not to mention, Joe's gonna have to explain why he was against Obama's decision to go get Osama. Which I give credit to that Administration for doing so. So Joe was against Gulf War I. He was for Gulf War II. And he was against taking out Osama. Helluva foreign policy track record. Not to mention the shadiness of China and Ukraine lucrative deals for Biden's son. While he was in office. Indeed, the son rode on AF2 and did business in those countries while Joe was "the portfolio manager" for them according to Obama. Edited

Exactly. The official prosecutor, DOJ, says that the investigation wasn't based on anything factual, therefore it's a invalid investigation. If so, then any alleged lie to the FBI (the agents involved didn't think he lied according to the now missing 302 - edited to remain in the original FBI agent's voice but with a different slant by corrupt Stryck and Page), is immaterial and moot legally. So why is the judge trying to act as a prosecutor? Both sides of the criminal case are saying, "Never mind." Yet the judge isn't letting it go. Why? As to your Trump tweet post - news yesterday is that the FBI and DOJ have NEVER produced a recording or transcript of the call in question. Not once. They briefed Pence on a paraphrased version of the call. So if they said Flynn lied, Pence was led to believe Flynn did so. But what if the FBI lied to Pence? Certainly reason to believe that the senior FBI folks at the time were capable of doing so - bogus, repeated FISA warrant applications, a bogus CI investigation of the incoming administration, leaking to the press, etc, etc. The FBI has removed itself from me giving it the benefit of doubt as to its integrity. Not most rank and file, I believe. But as an institution? Yeah, I'm squinty-eyed at it. Which as naïve on my part, since I, and believe most of us, will acknowledge Big Blue as behaving the same. Why would any other government leviathan be different? On the political side of this, Flynn being fired by a President is something I could care less about. Weaponizing the IC and justice system to settle political scores and/or screw your replacement President is a big deal. Because if allowed to stand, it will happen again. Regardless of party. And if it happens again to the big dogs, what does mean for the peons like us? I'm agin that.

Flynn was not charged nor plead guilty to perjury. He was charged with making a false statement to FBI agents. But the false statement is only a crime if the underlying reason the FBI was interviewing him had a basis in fact for such an investigation. Which it did not. According to FBI documents and personnel engaged with this at the time. That info was never revealed to Flynn or the court, despite it being mandatory to do so and the judge specifically ordering DOJ to provide any such. Then DOJ scoffed at the notion. And then the material was released last week. It was revealed that Flynn's interview basis was not material, therefore the lie (which the agents said they didn't think he was, btw) to the FBI doesn't matter legally. If he lied to Pence, that's between them. Both sides agreed to drop the case. The judge is now making up a charge of perjury to the court because Flynn pled guilty to the court. Twice. The judge seems to think that's perjury. Not a lawyer, but I'm fairly sure that this isn't the first time a defendant has made a guilty plea only to seek to withdraw it later. And the de facto prosecutor that the judge has appointed was a co-author of a very anti-Flynn and DOJ op-ed in Monday's Washington Post. Doesn't seem to be a disinterested party. Shenanagins on the part of the judge and most likely to be stomped on at appeal.

Those F-35s aren't going to sell themselves here or abroad...

This doesn't seem quite right: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/13/judge-appoints-retired-judge-to-represent-flynn-prosecution-256509 Same judge, by the way, who called Flynn, literally, a traitor in court and then had to walk that back with an apology. Same judge who agreed with now withdrawn DOJ counsel that "all exculpatory material was out there" as he claimed last year. Kinda disregards all the exculpatory stuff "found" in the last week. But fair and impartial. Go judiciary.

Full-size - M&P 9. Mine is in 9mm (17 + 1 capacity) but they have .40 and .45. I went with 9 so wife could handle it (sts). Concealed carry - switched from Springfield (US company, Croatia manufacture) XDS in .45 to S&W Shield in 9mm, again to match what wife carries and the fact that the .45 XDS is a snappy sumbitch and I'm not getting any younger. After a box of 50 at the range, I was done with it for the day. Whereas with a 9mm, it's 200 + per session.

Dreadnought Castles of Steel both by Robert Massie Both pretty hefty books, but I found them easy reads and fascinating accounts of the world of naval battle at around the turn of the 20th century, the building of the first modern battleship which started a massive arms race which led to WWI. Then he covers the use of those ships in combat and strategic messaging during the war. Although they are stand alone books, read them in the above order for best results

Boo-YA! https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/ap-exclusive-justice-dept-dropping-flynns-criminal-case/ The Justice Department said it had concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview on January 24, 2017 was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

Can we quote you in 30 years? "Man," said the F-69 pilot, "those Viper dinosaurs get on my nerves..."

A-fukcing-men.

Or, after specifically asking the Deputy Director of the FBI, "Should I have a lawyer present during the interview?" and being told no, so Flynn trusted his government. Which is on him. https://youtu.be/zOXtWxhlsUg

Documents released yesterday by FBI reveal the investigation of Flynn was "to get him to lie or to get him fired." This in the notes of the then head of FBI Counterintelligence in a strategy meeting in Comey's office before the interview with agents was arranged.

Reprehensible that DOJ/FBI fought so long and hard to hide the, apparently, exculpatory information regarding Flynn. Including, and especially, the secret deal that DOJ and Flynn's original attornies worked out in secret, without Flynn's knowledge, because DOJ had found some legally threatening "discrepancies" in the law firm's operations. So Flynn's original lawyers advised he fall on the grenade in order, at least partly, to protect themselves from further government investigation. Flynn was never aware of these shenanigans. Separate and unrelated: And all women must be believed. Right? Right!?