Sooner or later, we’ll become enslaved to the likes of this poster-girl for Michelle Obama beauty tips.

1. elected members of Congress are not “government employees”

2. have you ever HAD an employee?

3. for how long after you told them “nothing in your life is private”?

4. would you work under the conditions you name?

5. she was not referring to herself

6. she was not referring to a general “right to know stuff” the public has.

They don’t DO that. But the point here is that…

1. she did not say what was quoted, and

2. she did not MEAN what was stated in EITHER piece we have.

Whatever ELSE is true about this Collectivist, she was making a facially TRUE comment, and she would have made it in defense of ANY color of Deemocrat President.

We NEVER need to stoop to misquoting people or intentionally misconstruing what they say.

EVER.

With which I would agree, with the caveat that SOME of us exhibit the same propensity.

But THAT was NOT what Aleister said. First, he misquoted Norton. Second, he misstated what she actually DID say. So did Higgins in the root piece.

As to SOME of us playing the race card here, that is just intellectually lazy. Norton would raise the same points in defense of Clinton (either) or Gore. Her ideology is FAR superior to her racial allegiance, as anyone knows who has ever seen her attack a conservative person of color.

Do you think even for a nanosecond that any of her “constituents” has ever given a thought to the idea that a constitution was written to limit the government?

Of course you chose…as do we all…to support a government that “does things in secret and then keeps that information” from us!

If it doesn’t keep it secret from you, it doesn’t keep it secret from our enemies.

Furthermore, we want our governmentSSSSS to NOT tell us every damn thing, since that kind of information would often be detrimental to individuals and to the public at large. That isn’t even “keeping a secret”. It is just being careful with information.

Now, where we do agree…without the hyperventilating going on here…is that THIS regime has been historically secretive OFTEN IN VIOLATION OF LAWS to the contrary. See accounts, email.

Well, I don’t choose to voluntarily be part of a government that does things in secret and then keeps that information from me. It’s not what I signed up for.

It has always been true that some functions of each of the branches of government were held to be unique to those branches, and could not be invaded by the other branches except on the most extreme showing of a “need to know”.

The Supremes do no permit Congress or the Executive to drill them for information on their deliberations.

Congress would rightly refuse a demand by the President to know how their inquiry into an ethics violation is being conducted, and an individual Congressman would refuse many kinds of inquiry into his/her position on issues.

There are areas of the Executive’s activity that are generally off-limits to the other branches, and rightly so.