Obama 2.0: The Scandals Just Keep on Coming

ObamalyingJust when you think that the Obama Administration is slowly circling around the porcelain receptacle…something comes along to speed up its descent.

Yesterday afternoon, news broke that the Obama Administration through Attorney General Eric Holder, had secretly wiretapped editors and reporters, working for the Associated Press,  for two months, in April and May of 2012.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt called the wiretapping a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news. According to Pruitt, the Obama Administration sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. Furthermore, Pruitt has demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all the copies.

This is the third Obama Administration Scandal to break wide open since Thursday, when the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Darrel Issa, interviewed 3 whstleblowers about that tragic night of  September 11, 2012, when Muslim Terrorists murdered 4 brave Americans at the U.S. Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya.  The brave men, who testified last Thursday, spoke of an Administration who turned a dear ear to their cries for help that night. They also related the fact that the Youtube Video, which Obama and his Administration had blamed for the attack, was not the reason for the attack at all. In fact, it was virtually unknown in the Middle East.

The Republicans clearly won the day, with the Future Presidential Aspirations of Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, seemingly shot to Blazes.

On Friday, the second Obama Administration Scandal broke wide open, as it was revealed that the IRS had targeted Conservative Groups seeking non-profit status. Originally, it was claimed this abuse originated out of the Ohio Area.  Yesterday, it was revealed that, officials in Washington and at least two other offices were responsible for the targeting of those conservative groups.

The officials at the IRS’ Washington headquarters sent forms to be filled out to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea party-affiliated groups.

It was found out through interviews with those Conservative Groups, that the Cincinnati Office also told conservatives seeking the status of “social welfare” groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications.

When asked about the IRS’ actions at the joint Press Conference in the Rose Garden yesterday morning with Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron, Obama claimed that he knew nothing of the unconstitutional activities of the IRS until Friday.

Uh huh. And, I’m a 22 year old, blonde Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader named Buffy.

And, when asked about the Benghazi Scandal, Obama remarked that “There’s no there, there.”

Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods would disagree…if they were still alive to disagree.

According to reports, Obama had a tear in his eye as he answered the reporters’ questions about these scandals.

Somewhere, a crocodile is missing a tear.

One of our Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams, said,

The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.

At the time of Adams’ quote, America was under the thumb of a tyrannical despot, who sought to restrict our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, and even, our freedom of thought.

Today, as the events of the last 4 days have shown us, in unmistakable clarity, we are once again facing tyrannical oppression.

Not from a foreign enemy, but a domestic one, who is supposed to be the leader of all of us.

As the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama is supposed to be a champion of Freedom. Not a destroyer of it.

The greatest United States of America President in my lifetime, and a true champion of Freedom, Ronald Wilson Reagan, once said,

The United States remains the last best hope for a mankind plagued by tyranny and deprivation. America is no stronger than its people — and that means you and me. Well, I believe in you, and I believe that if we work together, then one day we will say, “We fought the good fight. We finished the race. We kept the faith.” And to our children and our children’s children, we can say, “We did all what could be done in the brief time that was given us here on earth.

Americans can overcome this freedom-stifling situation we find ourselves in. Its time to put pressure on our Senators and Representatives, and remind them who put them in office and who pays their salaries.

The Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch are supposed to be co-equal branches of our Government.

It’s time for the Legislative Branch to pull their weight.

This President and his Administration need to answer for their punitive actions, which have been directed at those whom they are supposed to be serving.

They seem to have forgotten who is supposed to be serving whom.

Until He Comes,


Thursday, 6/28/12: This Could Be the Start of Something Great

Well, as everybody knows, (even Harvard graduates) this Thursday is shaping up to be Bad Day at Black Rock for President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

Not only is the Supreme Court of the United States going to deliver its ruling on the Socialist Healthcare Plan known as Obamacare, but this nation’s House of Representatives are going to hold a vote as to whether to hold United States Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his obfuscation of his role in Operation Fast and Furious, the sanctioned mission by the Obama Administration that wound up causing the deaths of over 200 Mexican nationals and 2 American Law Enforcement Officers.

How did America get to this point?

In the case of Obamacare…

The nation’s highest court heard three days of politically charged hearings in March on the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a landmark but controversial measure passed by congressional Democrats despite pitched Republican opposition.

The challenge focused primarily on the law’s requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine.

How SCOTUS rulings could shape 2012 race Bachmann: Obama not talking health care

Supporters of the plan argued the “individual mandate” is necessary for the system to work, while critics argued it is an unconstitutional intrusion on individual freedom.

All sides preparing for political fallout from health care decision

Four different federal appeals courts heard challenges to parts of the law before the Supreme Court ruling, and came up with three different results.

Courts in Cincinnati and Washington voted to uphold the law, while the appeals court in Atlanta struck down the individual mandate.

A fourth panel, in Richmond, Virginia, put its decision off until penalties for failing to buy health insurance take effect in 2014.

The polarizing law, dubbed “Obamacare” by many, is the signature legislation of Obama’s time in office.

After a lengthy and heated debate marked by intense opposition from the health insurance industry and conservative groups, the law passed Congress along strictly partisan lines in March 2010.

When Obama signed the legislation later that month, he called it historic said it marked a “new season in America.”

While it was not the comprehensive national health care system liberals initially sought, supporters said the law would reduce health care costs, expand coverage and protect consumers.

The law establishes a staged series of reforms over several years, including banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, forbidding insurers from setting a dollar limit on health coverage payouts, and requiring them to cover preventative care at no additional cost to consumers.

It also required individuals to buy health insurance, either through their employers or a state-sponsored exchange, or face a fine beginning in 2014.

Supporters argue the individual mandate is critical to the success of the legislation, because it expands the pool of people paying for insurance and ensures that healthy people do not opt out of buying insurance until they needed it.

Critics said the provision gave the government too much power over what they said should be a personal economic decision.

Twenty-six states led by Florida say individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a “product” they may neither want nor need. And they argue that if that provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go.

The Justice Department countered that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not “choose” whether to participate in the health care market.

The partisan debate around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed almost every traditional hot-button topic: abortion and contraception funding, state and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the overall economy.

And, regarding Attorney General Eric Holder…

Republican leaders plan to bring the issue to the floor on Thursday, meaning lawmakers likely will vote on contempt charges on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to announce its ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 health-care reform law.

The timing likely deprives advocates for contempt charges of the big headlines they might have received if the vote were held another day this week.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)said Sunday that the vote could still be postponed or scrapped if Holder and Justice Department officials present congressional investigators with documents related to a probe intoOperation “Fast and Furious,” the botched gun-running operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives out of its Phoenix offices between 2009 and 2011.

If the House votes to hold him in contempt, Holder would be the first U.S. attorney general in history held in contempt of Congress. The matter would be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia — a Justice Department employee and Obama administration appointee — who would have to decide whether to bring criminal charges against the attorney general, his boss.

It should be an exciting Thursday to say the least, Bat-fans.

What has me puzzled is the rampant pessimism which I’ve seen so far in the posts of those identifying themselves as Conservatives.  If you’ve read some of these Eeyore-ish missives on Conservative Websites, you would think that the justices have already ruled 9 – 0 in favor of Obamacare and the House had voted not to hold the shady Attorney General in contempt.

What in the name of Dow Jones and all his little averages is a’goin’ on here?

In the words of a memorable speech given by the late Sen. John Blutarsky:

Bluto: Hey! What’s all this laying around stuff? Why are you all still laying around here for?

Stork: What the hell are we supposed to do, ya moron? We’re all expelled. There’s nothing to fight for anymore.

D-Day: [to Bluto] Let it go. War’s over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.

Bluto: What? Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Otter: [to Boon] Germans?

Boon: Forget it, he’s rolling.

Bluto: And it ain’t over now. ‘Cause when the goin’ gets tough…

[thinks hard of something to say]

Bluto: The tough get goin’! Who’s with me? Let’s go!

[Bluto runs out, alone; then returns]

Bluto: What the !@#$ happened to the Delta I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you’re gonna let it be the worst. “Ooh, we’re afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble.” Well just kiss my !@# from now on! Not me! I’m not gonna take this. Wormer, he’s a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer…

Otter: Dead! Bluto’s right. Psychotic… but absolutely right. We gotta take these b!@#$%^s. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!

Bluto: We’re just the guys to do it.

D-Day: [stands up] Yeah, I agree. Let’s go get ’em.

Boon: Let’s do it.

Bluto: [shouting] “Let’s do it”!

This is no time for Eeyore-ism. This is no time for squishiness.  This is not a time for “reaching across the aisle”.  This is not a time for defeatism.

This is a time for Americans to stand up on their hind legs, and to show the world what makes us the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

Walk tall. Talk loud.  Be Proud.  BE AMERICANS.

And, if that doesn’t fire you up, remember this:

The Holder Contempt Charges: All This for a Flag

Today was an extraordinary day.  It was unprecedented…and unsavory.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) issued the following statement after the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee approved a resolution holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents related to the Fast & Furious operation:

“Despite being given multiple opportunities to provide the documents necessary for Congress’ investigation into Fast and Furious, Attorney General Holder continues to stonewall. Today, the Administration took the extraordinary step of exerting executive privilege over documents that the Attorney General had already agreed to provide to Congress. Fast and Furious was a reckless operation that led to the death of an American border agent, and the American people deserve to know the facts to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. While we had hoped it would not come to this, unless the Attorney General reevaluates his choice and supplies the promised documents, the House will vote to hold him in contempt next week. If, however, Attorney General Holder produces these documents prior to the scheduled vote, we will give the Oversight Committee an opportunity to review in hopes of resolving this issue.”

The Fast and Furious Fiasco reminds me of some other unsavory business by the Executive Branch:

On 17th June 1972, 5 men were arrested for breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Initially, it was assumed that it was just a simple burglary that went wrong. However, when investigations started, it was found out that the men had entered the office to repair bugs that they had installed into the office nearly a week earlier.

On further investigations, it was found out that the so-called burglars were some how connected to the White House and were given the task to spy on the Democrats. One of the “burglars” arrested was named Jim McCord Jr. He was the security officer for Richard Nixon’s Committee to Reelect the President. Even a diary was found which had the contact number of E Howard Hunt, who was an intelligence agent and a member of the White House plumbers, which was a secret team of agents working at the behest of the White House. The investigators went on to figure out that the E Howard Hunt along G Gordon Liddy were the brains behind the first break in. Soon it was found that there were many agents responsible for spying on the Democrats. A check meant for Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign was traced to the bank account of one of the burglars. This led the investigators to conclude that the campaign funds were being used to fund these illegal activities. However, even at this stage, it did not stop Richard Nixon, a Republican, to win the US president election.

James McCord sent a letter to the trial judge naming other people who were part of this conspiracy. With more and more evidence being unearthed, it was soon clear that Richard Nixon was personally involved in the scandal along with several members from his administration. It was also discovered that many of the conversations regarding the conspiracy took place in the Oval Office and these conversations were taped. Initially, Nixon denied the presence of the tapes, but due to US Supreme Court order, he was forced to hand over the tapes containing the damning conversations. However, some important conversations from these tapes were missing.

The US Congress was forced to begin the process of impeachment against Richard Nixon. However, before the culmination of the process, Nixon resigned on 9th August 1974. While Nixon himself did not serve any prison time, many of his aides were found guilty by the Grand Jury.

There is a major difference, however, between the two.  200-300 Mexican nationals and two members of United States Law Enforcement were killed during Fast and Furious.  No one died as a result of Watergate.

There is more at stake here than a political dirty trick.

To clarify, let’s go back to 9/13/11, 2 days after America solemnly remembered the 10th anniversary of the worst attack ever on American soil by Islamic Terrorists.  James Robbins wrote the following story for The Washington Times, in which he illuminated a whispered conversation between the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and First Lady, Michelle Obama:

The internet was buzzing this week with video of First Lady Michelle Obama apparently showing extreme disrespect to the American flag at a ceremony in honor of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. As police and firefighters fold the flag to the sound of marching bagpipers, a skeptical looking Mrs. Obama leans to her husband and appears to say, “all this just for a flag.” She then purses her lips and shakes her head slightly as Mr. Obama nods.

Yes.  All this for a flag.  And, for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in its service.

You’ve Got to Know When to Hold(er) ’em…

Our nation’s chief law enforcement office is standing accused of deliberately lying to Congress.

Per  CBSNews.com:

The House Oversight Committee will vote next week on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. It’s the fourth time in 30 years that Congress has launched a contempt action against an executive branch member.

This time, the dispute stems from Holder failing to turn over documents subpoenaed on October 12, 2011 in the Fast and Furious “gunwalking” investigation.

The Justice Department has maintained it has cooperated fully with the congressional investigation, turning over tens of thousands of documents and having Holder testify to Congress on the topic at least eight times.

However, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., says the Justice Department has refused to turn over tens of thousands of pages of documents. Those include materials created after Feb. 4, 2011, when the Justice Department wrote a letter to Congress saying no gunwalking had occurred. The Justice Department later retracted the denial.

“The Obama Administration has not asserted Executive Privilege or any other valid privilege over these materials and it is unacceptable that the Department of Justice refuses to produce them. These documents pertain to Operation Fast and Furious, the claims of whistleblowers, and why it took the Department nearly a year to retract false denials of reckless tactics,” Issa wrote in an announcement of the vote to be released shortly. It will reveal the vote is scheduled for Wednesday, June 20.

Issa says the Justice Department can still put a stop to the contempt process at any time by turning over the subpoenaed documents.

If the House Oversight Committee approves the contempt citation, the matter would likely be scheduled for a full House vote.

On 8/31/2011, heritage.org told the story of this fatally botched operation:

A U.S. government gun-trafficking investigation gone horribly wrong has resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol officer, some 2,000 firearms in the hands of criminals, and the dismissal of a 24-year veteran law enforcement official. This is the story of Fast and Furious, and yesterday the latest chapter unfolded when two top officials associated with the operation were removed from their positions, while a third individual resigned.

The story begins in the fall of 2009, when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) office in Phoenix, Arizona, began selling weapons to small-time gun buyers in the hopes of tracing them to major weapons traffickers along the southwestern border and into Mexico. Their efforts failed, the number of arms unaccounted for numbers around 1,500 as of late July, and about two-thirds of those guns ended up in Mexico, according to congressional testimony.

Tragically, the botched operation has had serious consequences. On the night of December 15, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed during an effort to catch several bandits targeting illegal immigrants in Arizona near the border. When law enforcement rushed to the scene, they discovered two of the killers’ assault rifles that were among those sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious. Additionally, 57 Fast and Furious weapons have been connected to at least an additional 11 violent crimes in the U.S.

Of course, the Obama Administration is incredulous over Congress’ accusations regarding the Attorney General’s role in this fatal fiasco:

RollCall.com reported yesterday that

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today defended Attorney General Eric Holder’s cooperation with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s investigation into the “Fast and Furious” gun smuggling operation.

Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) announced today that his committee will hold a vote June 20 on a report relating to the committee’s efforts to hold Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to produce some documents subpoenaed by the panel.

Carney said Holder has taken the allegations that a gun-running sting resulted in thousands of guns being lost to criminal elements in Mexico “very seriously” and has asked his own inspector general to investigate.

He added that the Justice Department has handed over more than 7,600 pages of documents to the committee and has appeared eight times before Congress to discuss the scandal.

Carney then referred reporters to comments by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who told the Hill in March that the investigation is, in part, “politics.”

“Given the Justice Department’s efforts to accommodate the committee investigation, I can only refer you to the Republican House Judiciary member who recently conceded that this investigation is ‘politics,’” Carney said.

King’s comments appeared in a story about House GOP’s leadership’s reluctance to pursue the contempt citation against Holder. King reportedly said, “I think leadership doesn’t want to be seen as using the gavels here for political purposes. I think there’s a bit of an aversion to that. Me? I have no reservations about that. This is politics.”

Since then, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have gotten behind Issa’s efforts to compel the Justice Department to comply with the committee subpoena.

Carney also said the White House does not see a need to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate national security leaks relating to cyber-attacks against Iran, the U.S. drone strike program, the president’s involvement in selecting which terrorism suspects should be targeted for assassination and other stories that have recently appeared in the news.

Carney cited the administration’s record in prosecuting leaks of classified information in the past in indicating that the White House believes that the two U.S. attorneys Holder has appointed will be able to independently investigate the source of the information.

“I think our seriousness about this matter in general — about these matters in general has been demonstrated while the president has been in office. I would refer you to the Department of Justice and the FBI when it regards questions of matters under investigation or potential investigation. So there is no need for a special counsel. These things have consistently been investigated when that’s appropriate,” Carney said.

Yeah, right.  And America’s Private Sector is doing just fine.

On Wisconsin

Obama’s main flunky David Axelrod informed reporters on Sunday that an “army of lawyers” will be in the Badger state “to protect” the vote during the recall election.

And, sure enough, Attorney General Eric Holder is sending the troops in:

The Justice Department announced today that it will monitor elections on June 5, 2012, in the following jurisdictions to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other federal voting rights statutes: Alameda, Fresno and Riverside Counties, Calif.; Cibola and Sandoval Counties, N.M.; Shannon County, S.D.; and the city of Milwaukee.

The Voting Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the election process on the basis of race, color or membership in a minority language group. In addition, the act requires certain covered jurisdictions to provide language assistance during the election process. Fresno County, Riverside County and the city of Milwaukee are required to provide assistance in Spanish. Cibola, Sandoval and Shannon Counties are required to provide language assistance to Native American voters. Alameda County is required to provide language assistance to Hispanic, Chinese, Vietnamese and Filipino voters.

Under the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department is authorized to ask the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to send federal observers to jurisdictions that are certified by the attorney general or by a federal court order. Federal observers will be assigned to monitor polling place activities in Shannon County based on the attorney general’s certification and in Alameda, Riverside and Sandoval Counties based on court orders. The observers will watch and record activities during voting hours at polling locations in these jurisdictions, and Civil Rights Division attorneys will coordinate the federal activities and maintain contact with local election officials.

In addition, Justice Department personnel will monitor polling place activities in Fresno County, Cibola County and the city of Milwaukee. Civil Rights Division attorneys will coordinate federal activities and maintain contact with local election officials.

Why is today’s Recall Election attracting so much attention?  To answer that question, we need to examine what is going on within the state itself.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Triggered by a backlash against the Republican governor’s move 15 months ago to crimp collective bargaining for the state’s public employees, the recall race has pitted neighbor against neighbor, damaged decades-old friendships, and, in one case, led a woman to drive into her husband when he tried to stop her from voting for Mr. Walker’s opponent in a primary last month.

Wisconsin has long been a purple state with a fluid middle. Its U.S. senators have included both Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette, the progressive champion of the early 20th Century, and Joseph McCarthy, the fiery anti-Communist senator of the 1940s and 50s. Four of its past eight governors have been Democrats; four have been Republicans. While Wisconsin has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1988—Barack Obama won in 2008 by 14 percentage points—the 2010 election gave Republicans control of both houses of the state legislature and ushered Mr. Walker into office.

Mr. Walker and his supporters say curbing public union’s collective-bargaining rights is essential to balancing the state budget, lowering property taxes and creating a business-friendly environment. Union members and many Democrats say public-sector unions weren’t the cause of the state’s budget problems and argue that Mr. Walker has used his office to drive an ideological agenda well to the right of what most Wisconsinites want.

Both sides, along with the national political establishment, would see a victory Tuesday as a validation of their position and a harbinger of the public mood heading into November’s presidential election.

This spring, as the recall entered the home stretch, political positions have become so hardened that a Marquette University Law School poll late last month found only one in every 50 likely voters hadn’t decided how to vote. The poll showed Mr. Walker ahead of his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, by seven percentage points, within the margin of error. More than one-third of respondents said they had stopped speaking about politics to someone because of disagreements over the recall.

“I don’t have any of them for friends anymore,” Mr. Ertel said of those with whom he might disagree. “It’s just better to ignore them.”

The race has drawn tens of millions of dollars in political donations—much of it from outside Wisconsin—into a state of just 5.7 million people. Much of it has found its way into negative advertisements. In Sheboygan, a Republican-leaning middle-class city of 50,000 on Lake Michigan roughly halfway between Milwaukee and Green Bay, yard signs are ubiquitous and bumper stickers run to the demeaning.

Carol Zoren, a 73-year-old Democrat, sports a bumper sticker on her car that says “Vote Republican Values: Debt, Corruption and Invented War.” A few weeks ago, a man started screaming at her in a parking lot. “He said he was a veteran and he didn’t fight for people like me,” she said. “I told him to buzz off.”

Politicians have tapped into the discord. At a bratfest behind the Sheboygan County Republican headquarters, State Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, told a crowd: “The Democrats will do anything to steal an election; I do believe that.” The comment drew loud applause.

Hence, the ” uninvited oversight” from the Obama White House, while the “Boss”, in true Chicago Politics style, remains as removed from the situation as possible, in order to claim plausible deniability.

Stay tuned.

Disenfranchising the Dead Voter Bloc

Remember J. Christian Adams?

He resigned from the Department of Justice in 2010 over the handling of the Black Panther case, then he testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that he was told “cases are not going to be brought against black defendants for the benefit of white victims.”

Well, now he writes for pjmedia.com and he has posted this story:

I have learned that Florida election officials are set to announce that the secretary of state has discovered and purged up to 53,000 dead voters from the voter rolls in Florida.

How could 53,000 dead voters have sat on the polls for so long? Simple. Because Florida hadn’t been using the best available data revealing which voters have died. Florida is now using the nationwide Social Security Death Index for determining which voters should be purged because they have died.

Here is the bad news. Most states aren’t using the same database that Florida is. In fact, I have heard reports that some election officials won’t even remove voters even when they are presented with a death certificate. That means that voter rolls across the nation still are filled with dead voters, even if Florida is leading the way in detecting and removing them.

But surely people aren’t voting in the names of dead voters, the voter fraud deniers argue. Wrong.

Consider the case of Lafayette Keaton. Keaton not only voted for a dead person in Oregon, he voted for his dead son. Making Keaton’s fraud easier was Oregon’s vote by mail scheme, which has opened up gaping holes in the integrity of elections. The incident in Oregon just scratches the surface of the problem. Massachusetts and Mississippi are but two other examples of the dead rising on election day.

Florida should be applauded for taking the problem seriously, even if Eric Holder’s Justice Department and many state election officials don’t.

On December 13, 2011, politico.com published the following story about the United States Attorney General’s opinion of the proposed state Voter I.D. Laws:

…“It is time to ask: What kind of nation and what kind of people do we want to be? Are we willing to allow this era — our era — to be remembered as the age when our nation’s proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended?” Holder said in a speech at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum in Austin, Texas.

This year, eight states have passed laws that require voters to show identification at the polls. Two of those states, South Carolina and Texas, need so-called pre-clearance from the Justice Department or a court, which has not yet been granted. Some states are also rolling back early voting options and adding new registration procedures, while others are imposing rules that could make it more difficult for college students and the elderly to vote.

Critics complain that the measures will have a disproportionate impact on minorities and the poor and are aimed at suppressing turnout of voters who tend to support Democrats. Supporters generally cite a need to fight fraud, though some have on occasion admitted seeking to discourage voting by specific groups, such as students.

Holder suggested that the new voter ID laws are unnecessary but was vague about what action the Justice Department plans to take against them, particularly in those states free to craft election procedures without the prior approval from the DOJ or the courts required by the Voting Rights Act. Under Section 5 of that law, most parts of nine states and a smattering of other counties and towns with a history of election-related discrimination must apply to the Justice Department or a court for permission to change voting procedures.

“Since January, more than a dozen states have advanced new voting measures. Some of these new laws are currently under review by the Justice Department, based on our obligations under the Voting Rights Act,” Holder said. “Although I cannot go into detail about the ongoing review of these and other state law changes, I can assure you that it will be thorough — and fair. We will examine the facts and we will apply the law.”

Holder’s message seemed as much a public exhortation to fight voter ID laws as a vow that the Justice Department would take action to block them.

“Speak out. Raise awareness about what’s at stake,” Holder said. “Call on our political parties to resist the temptation to suppress certain votes in the hope of attaining electoral success and, instead, encourage and work with the parties to achieve this success by appealing to more voters. And urge policymakers at every level to re-evaluate our election systems — and to reform them in ways that encourage, not limit, participation.”

In his remarks, Holder addressed the question of voter fraud that has been cited repeatedly by advocates of the new state laws such as Republican state Sen. Troy Fraser, a sponsor of Texas’s voter ID law, who said at the time the bill was passed: “Voter impersonation is a serious crime, but without a photo ID requirement, we can never have confidence in our system of voting.”

Holder said he prosecuted voter fraud cases earlier in his career but that “in-person voting fraud is uncommon.”

[53,000 Dead Voters in one state is uncommon?]

“We must be honest about this,” he said.

Of course, AG Holder is just acting on orders from his boss, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm):

President Obama’s reelection campaign launched a national drive Friday to counter new restrictive voter-access laws, which advisers said threaten his electoral chances in November. 


Organizers will fan out in key swing states this weekend to teach volunteers and voters how to navigate a series of laws passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures imposing stricter identification requirements, limiting early voting and making it harder to organize voter-registration drives.

It is the beginning of a months-long effort, campaign officials said, to combat what they described as a Republican effort to stifle voting among young people and minorities, two groups that traditionally tend to vote Democratic.

Republicans say the new laws are needed to protect against voter fraud and help make elections fairer.

The Obama campaign’s “weekend of action” is part of a field effort that in 2008 helped identify, register and turn out millions of new voters. Those new voters gave Obama wins in unlikely places, including North Carolina and Virginia, where young and minority voters helped make the difference. Turning out those voters again this year is key to the president’s reelection strategy, but it is also more challenging this year in part because of the new voting laws.

Up until now, Americans thought what Sam “Mooney” Giacana did in turning out the Chicago and Illinois vote to elect JFK was the height of  “shady”.

It turns out that the late “businessman” was an amateur compared to these operators…and,he will probably be voting for Obama on November 6, 2012.

Spinning Obama’s Supreme Court “Gaffe”

You can take a president away from Chicago Politics, but you can’t take the practice of Chicago Politics away from a president.

Per foxnews.com:

Obama, during a joint press conference Monday with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, said he’s “confident” the law will be upheld, but cautioned the “unelected” court against reaching any other conclusion. In doing so, Obama invoked what he described as conservative concerns about judicial activism.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called it a “fantasy” to think “every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is ‘activist.'”

“Judicial activism or restraint is not measured by which side wins but by whether the Court correctly applied the law,” he said.

The president’s challenge to the high court drew widespread attention, on the eve of the Republican presidential candidates’ next round of primaries — Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia are voting Tuesday. All the candidates oppose the health care law, though front-runner Mitt Romney has come under fire for his role in passing one with similar provisions while governor of Massachusetts.

Romney, who describes the federal law as an overreach, also slammed Obama for his Supreme Court comments on Tuesday.

Romney, in an interview on Fox News, said an activist court is one that “departs” from the Constitution and legislates from the bench. In this case, he said, the judges simply are weighing whether a law is constitutional.

“That will not be an activist court — that will be a court following the Constitution,” Romney said.

Now, the Obama Administration is spinning faster the turnstile at Disney World.

White House press secretary Jay Carney tells the press corps that President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court was misunderstood because he was speaking in “shorthand” since he is a former professor of law.

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

Former Obama Law Student Thom Lambert wrote the following article, My Professor, My Judge, and the Doctrine of Judicial Review, which was posted on foxnews.com:

Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment.

Okay.  So how do Obama’s Law Professors feel about his shorthand?  One of them seems to be spinning as hard as the Administration.

President Obama’s former law-school professor said yesterday the president “obviously misspoke” when he challenged the authority of the US Supreme Court to overturn his historic health-care law.

“He didn’t say what he meant. . . and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it,” Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe told The Wall Street Journal.

Tribe, who called Obama one of his best students, tried to downplay the president’s remarks by insisting everyone already knows he wants the law to survive.

“I don’t think anything was gained by his making these comments and I don’t think any harm was done, except by public confusion,” Tribe said.

By the way…

Lawrence Tribe is an American constitutional scholar and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at the Harvard Law School. A longstanding proponent of liberal jurisprudence, in 2001 Tribe helped found the American Constitution Society a supposed liberal counterweight to the conservative Federalist Society and was long considered a possible Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic administration.

This situation has me singing an old Blood, Sweat, and Tears song:  Spinning wheel got to go ’round…The Attorney General is singing too:

“The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed,” Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. “The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.”

Methinks Justice Kagan has spilled the beans to her former boss and things aren’t going to go Obama’s way when the Supreme Court’s decision is given.

In the meantime…pray.

The United States of America Vs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio

The man who swore to take an oath to protect American citizens seems more concerned with protecting those here illegally.

Reuters.com reports that

The Obama administration on Tuesday said it was preparing to sue Arizona county sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department for violating civil rights laws by improperly targeting Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.

The sheriff’s high-profile crackdown on illegal immigrants has helped thrust the issue onto the national political stage with some states passing tough new laws aimed at pushing out those in the country illegally.

The administration’s Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office have been in settlement talks for months over allegations that officers regularly made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.

Those negotiations have broken down because of a fight over the Justice Department’s demand that an independent monitor be appointed by a federal court to oversee compliance with the settlement, which has now reached 128 pages in draft form, according to the Obama administration.

“We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith,” Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in a letter to the lawyer for Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).

Austin said in the letter that Arpaio’s team demanded that a meeting slated for Wednesday include for the first time negotiations over the monitor and previously had demanded that the Justice Department provide more details about its findings.

“MCSO’s refusal to engage in good faith negotiations requires us to prepare for civil (court) action,” Austin said. He added that the Justice Department has recently discovered more information about the “failure to reasonably investigate sex crimes” by Arpaio’s office.

The Justice Department in a December report outlined numerous alleged civil rights violations, including that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos by Arpaio’s force.

The sheriff has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at the Obama administration for targeting his department and failing to deal with the problem of illegal immigration with some 11.5 million believed to be in the United States.

In a strongly worded statement on Tuesday, Arpaio said the appointment of a monitor would force him to abdicate responsibility for his police force, including decisions about policies, operations, jail programs and enforcement.

“To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!” Arpaio said in the statement.

Arpaio’s force has been under investigation by federal authorities since 2008 during the Bush administration. Obama’s Justice Department spent months fighting for access to documents and to some of his deputies. Arpaio was interviewed twice during the probe.

Where was the concern of the Obama Administration when a good, hard-working American was gunned down by an illegal in Arizona.  Remember this story?

Police say Robert Krentz, whose family has been ranching in southern Arizona since 1907, was gunned down early Saturday morning, March 27th, 2010, by an illegal immigrant while out on his ATV tending to fences and water lines on the family’s 34,000-acre cattle ranch.

Reached by phone early Tuesday at his family’s ranch, Andy Krentz, Krentz’s oldest son, said his father was a churchgoing man who routinely went out of his way to help those in need.

“My father was a very good family man,” Krentz told FoxNews.com. “He supported his kids, supported his family. He went out of his way to help anybody we could without regarding to who they were. It didn’t matter who they were.”

Sue Krentz, Krentz’s wife, said she was “pretty overwhelmed” by her husband’s death, which coincided with her parents’ deteriorating health.

“This is icing on the cake,” Krentz said.

Yes, it was. The public outcry was deafening.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law Friday, April 23rd, 2010, a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation’s busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were “overreacting” and that she wouldn’t tolerate racial profiling.

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” Brewer said after signing the law. “But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”

Do you realize that there are parts of Arizona where Americans are not allowed to travel because of the danger of violence from Mexican Drug Lords?

Roughly 3,500 acres of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge — about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre park — have been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials acknowledged a marked increase in violence along a tract of land that extends north from the border for roughly three-quarters of a mile. Federal officials say they have no plans to reopen the area.

Elsewhere, at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, which shares a 32-mile stretch of the border with Mexico, visitors are warned on a federally-run website that some areas are not accessible by anyone.

“Due to our proximity to the International Boundary with Mexico, some areas near the border are closed for construction and visitor safety concerns,” the website reads.

On another page titled “Border Concerns,” the website warns that visitors should be aware that “drug smuggling routes” pass through the park.

“If you see any activity which looks illegal, suspicious, or out of place, please do not intervene,” the website reads. “Note your location. Call 911 or report it to a ranger as quickly as possible. Each year hundreds of people travel north through the park seeking to enter the United States.”

Visitors are also warned to be mindful of illegal immigrants within Ironwood Forest National Monument, a 129,000-acre federal parkland in the Sonoran Desert.

Excuse me, Mr. President and Mr. Attorney General…Before you attempt to embarrass and verbally crucify a fine public servant like Sheriff Joe, why don’t you take care of those in Arizona who are in violation of our country’s laws and endangering the lives of American citizens, first?

Your priorities seem to be just a wee bit out of order.

Mr. Robert Krentz remains unavailable for comment.

Eric Holder’s DOJ: Covington and Boling, West

Eric Holder has staffed the United States Department of Justice for the past three years with, naturally, his own people.  Unfortunately, they all seem to come from his former law firm of Covington and Boling, which has a history of interesting clients, to say the least, which, in turn, affects the United States Department of Justice.

Judicialwatch.org has the story:

In a scary development, a major Obama fundraiser who defended a convicted al Qaeda terrorist will become the third highest ranking official at the Department of Justice (DOJ), which, ironically, is charged with defending the interests of the United States.

Northern California lawyer Tony West has been named Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, making him the No. 3 guy at the agency. In 2009 West, who helped Obama raise tens of millions of dollars as finance co-chairman of his first presidential campaign, was appointed to help run the DOJ’s civil division which represents the government, Congress and presidential cabinet officers and handles cases dealing with significant policy issues.

In a statement announcing the promotion this week, Attorney General Eric Holder says West has served the department with “professionalism, integrity and dedication.” Holder also mentions West’s work before coming to the DOJ a few years ago, including a stint as a Special Assistant Attorney General in California and a lengthier career at a large San Francisco law firm.

Conveniently omitted in the press release is that West represented convicted al Qaeda terrorist John Walker Lindh, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence. Lindh was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 while fighting against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance as a member of the Taliban army. He actually pleaded guilty to aiding the Taliban and carrying explosives while fighting U.S. troops in the region.

Holder also knows a thing or two about defending terrorists. After all, he was a senior partner in a prestigious Washington D.C. law firm (Covington & Burling) that represented more than a dozen Yemeni terrorists held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. While Holder was a senior partner the firm employed a number of radical attorneys to provide the Islamic extremists with thousands of hours of free legal representation, according to a news report.

Another highlight in Holder’s resume is that he orchestrated Bill Clinton’s shameful last-minute pardons, including that of a fugitive financier and a pair of jailed domestic terrorists. In fact, shortly after the pardon scandal, Holder predicted that his public career was over. Under his leadership the DOJ has been embroiled in a number of high-profile scandals, including a gun-running operation (Fast and Furious) in which weapons were sold to Mexican drug cartels. One was later used to murder a federal agent. Judicial Watch has sued the DOJ to obtain records involving the operation.

United States Attorney General Eric Holder has a three year history of dubious decisions and deals, and a lot of them involve Covington and Boling.

In her best seller, Culture of Corruption, published in 2009, Michelle Malkin wrote that

Holder returns to a more modest $186,000 salary as Obama’s attorney general. But parting has its perks, too. The Washington revolving door pays.

Covington & Burling will make a separation payment valued at between $1 million and $5 million, plus a repayment of up to $1 million from the firm’s capital account, plus a retirement plan of up to $500,000. His net worth: $5.7 million. Reflecting on his past eight years raking in the dough and watching him schmooze friends and clients from his “elegant new Manhattan offices,” an American Lawyer profile observed: “Life is good for private citizen Eric Holder, Jr.” President Obama and the missus, such outspoken detractors of climbing the corporate ladder and influence-peddling, were unavailable for comment.

Some “Separation Package”, huh?

But, when is leaving a firm not really leaving a firm?  When you bring the firm with you.

Reuters News recently reported that

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, were partners for years at a Washington law firm that represented a Who’s Who of big banks and other companies at the center of alleged foreclosure fraud…

…The firm, Covington & Burling, is one of Washington’s biggest white shoe law firms. Law professors and other federal ethics experts said that federal conflict of interest rules required Holder and Breuer to recuse themselves from any Justice Department decisions relating to law firm clients they personally had done work for.

Both the Justice Department and Covington declined to say if either official had personally worked on matters for the big mortgage industry clients. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Holder and Breuer had complied fully with conflict of interest regulations, but she declined to say if they had recused themselves from any matters related to the former clients.

Reuters reported in December that under Holder and Breuer, the Justice Department hasn’t brought any criminal cases against big banks or other companies involved in mortgage servicing, even though copious evidence has surfaced of apparent criminal violations in foreclosure cases.

The evidence, including records from federal and state courts and local clerks’ offices around the country, shows widespread forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, and illegal foreclosures on the homes of thousands of active-duty military personnel.

In recent weeks the Justice Department has come under renewed pressure from members of Congress, state and local officials and homeowners’ lawyers to open a wide-ranging criminal investigation of mortgage servicers, the biggest of which have been Covington clients. So far Justice officials haven’t responded publicly to any of the requests.

…Senior government officials often move to big Washington law firms, and lawyers from those firms often move into government posts. But records show that in recent years the traffic between the Justice Department and Covington & Burling has been particularly heavy. In 2010, Holder’s deputy chief of staff, John Garland, returned to Covington, as did Steven Fagell, who was Breuer’s deputy chief of staff in the criminal division.

The firm has on its web site a page listing its attorneys who are former federal government officials. Covington lists 22 from the Justice Department, and 12 from U.S. Attorneys offices, the Justice Department’s local federal prosecutors’ offices around the country.

Between the Black Panther Intimidation Cover-up after the Midterm Elections, the attempt to try Islamic Terrorists in the heart of New York City, and now this, it appears that corruption, or at the very least, the appearance of it, is the norm, not the exception under Attorney General Eric Holder.

It is time for him to go.

His boss, too.