Not so Good for the Gander

Gooseby Leigh Bravo   3/22/14
Should the laws that are passed by our leaders apply only to the American people and not to our Representatives? Is what’s good for the goose not so good for the gander?

We have all seen Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat for California, in the news a lot lately. Why? Should the American People be concerned about the recent stories, and are they true?

First, the most recent story involved Senator Feinstein’s outrage at the CIA over the issue of domestic spying. The Senator accused the CIA of spying on staff members of her committee while they were examining CIA documents in Virginia. She said,

“The CIA did not ask the committee or its staff if the committee had access to the internal review or how we obtained it.” “Instead, the CIA just went and searched the committee’s computer.” Feinstein said that she had “grave concerns” the search violated federal law regarding domestic spying as well as congressional oversight responsibilities under the Constitution.” “I have asked for an apology and a recognition that this CIA search of computers used by its oversight committee was inappropriate. I have received neither.”

Now, let’s look back at an October, 2013 article by the Wall Street Journal where Senator Feinstein defended the NSA’s spying program:

“Since it was exposed in June by leaker Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency’s call-records program has become controversial and many have questioned whether its benefits are worth the costs. My answer, it is necessary and must be preserved if we are to prevent terrorist attacks.”

The Senator also claimed that 54 acts of terrorism were thwarted as a result of the bulk data collection program. However, NSA Director, General Keith Alexander, admitted that phone records collection stopped terrorist activity in only 1 or 2 terrorist cases. Feinstein went further to say,

“The NSA call-records program is working and contributing to our safety. It is legal and it is subject to strict oversight and through judicial review.”

But, are her statements true? Is the collection of our private data legal? Is it okay for the American people to have their private conversations and private date invaded without probable cause, or a warrant? A lawsuit on these issues was filed by the ACLU, (American Civil Liberties Union), and a Federal judge dismissed the lawsuit claiming the mass phone data collation was legal. Really?

What does the Bill of Rights say under the Constitution about our rights to privacy? It protects the, “Privacy of the person and possessions against unreasonable searches and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.”

What if I told you that the New York Times recently discovered that the NSA had been listening to telephone conversations between lawyers at a highly regarded Chicago law firm and their clients? If you were being attacked by the IRS, a government agency, and you hired an attorney to represent you, would you think your constitutional rights of privacy were being violated if you knew the NSA was listening to your conversations with your attorney prior to your court case? Do you think that it violates the right of clients to speak freely with their attorneys? Do you think your Constitutional Rights are being undermined? Is Senator Feinstein entitled to rights that you have been denied?

Let’s look at another news story that has been surfacing on Senator Feinstein: the sale of 56 United States Post Offices around the country and the connection of the sale to Senator Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum. CBRE is the world’s largest commercial real estate service firm serving its owners, investors, and occupiers. Blum is the Board Chairman of CBRE and owns an investment firm that holds a small percentage of CBRE stock. Do you think it is a “conflict of interest” that Senator Feinstein’s husband is connected to the firm who recently won the contract to sell these USPS properties?

In the San Francisco chronicle on February 8, they said,

“Feinstein is not involved with and does not discus any of her husband’s business decisions with him. Her husband’s holdings are his separate personal property.”

Even if she is unaware of his holdings and business dealings, does this make the fact that they are married a conflict of interest? Could he gain access to inside information regarding the sale of these properties through his wife’s connections in the Senate? Do we trust our leaders in this day and age to tell the truth? To follow the rule of law?

In an article by the Washington Post, The Inspector General criticized the relationship between the USPS and CBRE. What do you think about it? Is it fair? Is it a conflict of interest? Do you feel the American people are truly being served by our current Representatives? Are they only interested in making decisions for you, but in the process ensure that the rules and laws do not apply to them?

I suggest you contact your local Representative or Senator and let them know how you feel or, at the very least, let them know in the midterm elections if, in fact, fraud in the voting booths is not violating our Constitutional rights.

Is the statement true? “What is good for the goose is good for the gander?” Or have our current Representatives changed that to, ”What is good for the goose, not so good for the gander?”
__________________________________________________
Leigh Bravo blogs at The Trumpet. • (1228 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Not so Good for the Gander

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Certainly the Political Class (Milovan Djilas referred to them as the “New Class”) like to exempt themselves from the laws they impose on others (e.g., Obamacare). This short of thing should be an abomination, and in fact making Congress obey the laws they impose on everyone else was one of the features of the Contract With America.

    One of the most striking example of this sort of hypocrisy, of course, is self-defense. A large number of elites oppose gun control while relying on armed guards (which most of us can’t afford) for their own protection. But some do rely on their own weapons that they would deny the rest of us, and Dianne Fineswine is one of those; in fact, I recall Dan White listing her as one of the San Francisco aldermen who routinely went about armed in his discussions with Martin Blinder following White’s murder of Moscone and Milk. (His point was that the fact that he was armed when he went to see Moscone that day didn’t indicate a premeditation to shoot. This proved to be very important, since in the end he was convicted of second-degree rather than first-degree murder.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *