Investigating Eric Holder

Believe me, I am no fan of Eric Holder.  I feel that he never should have gotten the job as Attorney General.  The Department of Justice has a bad habit of looking at everything on a color bar instead of justice.  The entire purpose of our justice system in this country is give equal rights to all.

Since Holder has taken over lawsuits against states to firm up their voter rolls have been dropped.  By law, every state across the union is supposed to update their voter registration rolls in order to get the money that the federal government gives them to help cover the costs for all federal level elections.  The department filed these suits against states that were not keeping up with their end of the bargain when Michael Mukasey was heading the department.  They were summarily dropped when Holder took over.  The evidence of how the department of "civil rights" is anything but.  While most of the people in this department are career lawyers, it still is a statement of the people who are running the department when eyes are closed to what they are doing.  Free and fair elections cannot happen if we don't have trust that the states are doing what they should be doing when it comes to removing ineligible voters off the rolls.

As much I would like to think that Eric Holder is going to be convicted of perjury, I just don't see it happening.  What Eric Holder actually said was that he wasn't aware of anyone wanting to prosecute reporters.  While it may be a parsing of words, there is a big difference being investigating a person and charging a person with a crime.

The real thing that should be investigated is who is the person who misled the courts?  By AG Holder's own testimony, they never had any intention of charging James Rosen with a crime, they just wanted some information that they could get no other way.  Someone stood in front of judge and asked for phone and email records of a private citizen who they never had any intention of prosecuting.  Not only that, they went judge "shopping" to find one that would allow them not to notify his employers and called him a flight risk.  This person should be fired for cause, therefore giving up all rights to the federal benefits, and also be barred from practicing law, ever again.

Now, I do think that since Eric Holder's signature is on the paperwork he can no longer be trusted by Americans to do what is fair and just.   If President Obama had any sense he would ask for the resignation of his attorney general.  Moving forward the citizens of this country deserve to have someone at the helm of this department that they believe is doing the work of the office, giving citizens the belief that our justice system is doing its job, upholding the law without regard to political beliefs, race, color, or creed.  The amount of power this department used to go after one person is exactly what our founders warned us against and tried to protect us from.

Oh, The Ties that Bind. Why I.R.S., The AP Records, and Benghazi Matters to All Americans

The Obama administration is in the middle of three "scandals".  The fact the media is finally on board with them all is great start.  Of course this is years too late, but I will say welcome aboard.  

The I.R.S. is the most important, to me anyway.  Others will have another view of it.  But to find out that one of the most powerful government agencies was specifically targeting people based on political affiliation is nothing short of Nixonian and completely unacceptable.  This shouldn't matter what side of the political aisle you are on.  If this is allowed to happen, it won't take long for them to come gunning for an organization that you are fond of.  It doesn't matter that these groups happened to be conservative.  All that matters is that a government agency that has the power to put you in jail was targeting individual Americans as well as non-profit groups.  There is no way to say at this moment if President Obama is involved.  I, of course, wouldn't be a bit surprised if he were, but so far at this point the evidence of that isn't out there.  Yet. 

But we do see is a pattern of behavior with this administration.  Of course people like me have been saying this for years, but at least the media is seeing it for themselves.  President Obama doesn't like anything that doesn't fit his narrative.  If he doesn't like, he thinks he can just ignore it and somehow the rest of us won't figure it out.  

Baghdad Bob Jim Carney is reaching epic proportions of comedy with his denials that the White House had a hand in the changing the talking points of the terrorist attacks on Benghazi.  I mean seriously, it was the anniversary of 9/11, did anyone in this country not automatically think terrorism the moment they heard about the attacks?  al Qaeda is well-known for liking anniversaries and dates that have meaning for their attacks.  That is isn't a talking point, it is just a statement of fact.  Anyone that is paying attention, even a little, has seen the original C.I.A. talking points and what the statement became after all the fingers got into that pie.  Some of those fingers came from The White House.  Denying it only makes them look silly.  But denying they are.  

The AP dustup is very interesting considering that President Obama and AG Holder both have been talking about changing the laws regarding the rules that the government has when it comes to national security leaks and the press.  Yet, four years later nothing has been done.  The real scary part of this incident is that people who have information that the American people should be aware of they will be afraid to come forward.  That doesn't bode well for future generations.  

The ties to all of these stories comes down to how stupid this administration is.  This is by their own admission.  Apparently, according to Obama, the daily presidential briefing never said the word terrorism, even though we now know that the C.I.A. said about the final version that they didn't see point of the talking points since all words of terrorism were removed.  President Obama didn't know about the I.R.S. scandal until the news reports.  Both he and his spokesperson has said this.  The report was given to them two weeks ago.  The same story about the AP scandal.  What type of management is being used in this White House?  Who exactly is making these decisions not to bring this to the attention of the president?  Shouldn't that person be held responsible for making the president look so inept?  Now, I personally feel that president is inept, but for those that are his "fans" it must be very disappointing indeed.  

But the biggest problem with all of these scandals what is really going to happen is the loss of trust in the government.  It isn't like the trust was all that great to start with.  Matter of fact, it is very, very, low.  Those numbers are just going to go lower.  While this may in the end, help the politico class, because fewer people are going to pay attention.  They may end up staying in office because only the truly partisan will show up to vote in 14.  Which of course means that the problems will only get worse.  

I do wonder if President Obama would like to change his words during OSU's graduation speech:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all of our faith in government to solve our problems; we shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us; it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. (Applause.) And, Class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process

Yes some of those voices talking of tyranny are The Tea Party.  Turns out they were right.  

Quote of the Day - Judge Hinkle Edition

“leaving an ineligible voter on the list is not a solution.  People need to know we are running an honest election."

Judge Hinkle, A Clinton appointee, on the lawsuit filed by DOJ to stop the state of Florida from purging illegals off its voter rolls.

DOJ and Holder are having a bad week.  The judge will allow the purge to continue.  As he should.  There should be no chance that an illegal is voting in our elections, or at least to close to no chance as possible.  Voting is right in this country, but that doesn't mean that you can do so illegally.

Agent Terry's Family Releases Statement on Executive Privilege and Contempt Charges

“Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to fully disclose the documents associated with Operation Fast and Furious and President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege serves to compound this tragedy. It denies the Terry family and the American people the truth.”

The Terrys said that their son “was killed by members of a Mexican drug cartel armed with weapons from this failed Justice Department gun trafficking investigation. For more than 18 months we have been asking our federal government for justice and accountability. The documents sought by the House Oversight Committee and associated with Operation Fast and Furious should be produced and turned over to the committee. Our son lost his life protecting this nation, and it is very disappointing that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves rather than revealing the truth behind Operation Fast and Furious.”

These people buried their child.  They deserve to know why.  

Eric Holder Releases Statement After Committee Votes to Push for Contempt of Congress Charge

“In recent months, the Justice Department has made unprecedented accommodations to respond to information requests by Chairman Issa about misguided law enforcement tactics that began in the previous administration and allowed illegal guns to be taken into Mexico.  Department professionals have spent countless hours compiling and providing thousands of documents -- nearly 8,000 -- to Chairman Issa and his committee.   My staff has had numerous meetings with congressional staff to try and accommodate these requests and yesterday, I met with Chairman Issa to offer additional internal Department documents and information that would satisfy what he identified as the Committee’s single outstanding question.

Unfortunately, Chairman Issa has rejected all of these efforts to reach a reasonable accommodation.  Instead, he has chosen to use his authority to take an extraordinary, unprecedented and entirely unnecessary action, intended to provoke an avoidable conflict between Congress and the Executive Branch.  This divisive action does not help us fix the problems that led to this operation or previous ones and it does nothing to make any of our law enforcement agents safer.  It's an election-year tactic intended to distract attention -- and, as a result -- has deflected critical resources from fulfilling what remains my top priority at the Department of Justice:  Protecting the American people.  

Simply put, any claims that the Justice Department has been unresponsive to requests for information are untrue.  From the beginning, Chairman Issa and certain members of the Committee have made unsubstantiated allegations first, then scrambled for facts to try to justify them later. That might make for good political theater, but it does little to uncover the truth or address the problems associated with this operation and prior ones dating back to the previous Administration.  

I have spent most of my career in law enforcement and worked closely with brave agents who put their lives on the line every day.  I know the sacrifices they make, so as soon as allegations of gunwalking came to my attention – and well before Chairman Issa expressed any interest in this issue -- I ordered the practice stopped.  I made necessary personnel changes in the Department's leadership and instituted policy changes to ensure better oversight of significant investigations.  And, I directed the Department's Inspector General to open a comprehensive investigation.  That investigation is ongoing, and the American people and Congress can count on it to produce a tough, independent review of the facts.

When Chairman Issa later began his own investigation, I made it clear that the Department would cooperate with all appropriate oversight requests, while still adhering to our legal obligations to protect information involving ongoing law enforcement investigations, legally-protected grand jury material and other sensitive information whose disclosure would endanger the American people or our agents investigating open cases.   

The American people deserve better.  That is why, I will remain focused on, and committed to, the Justice Department’s mission to protect the rights, safety, and best interests of my fellow citizens and to stand by my brave colleagues in law enforcement.

Quote of the Day - Tamara Holder Edition

“I think it’s a compliment of sorts.” 

Tamara Holder, liberal and feminist, when asked if the term MILF (Mothers I would like to F^^K) was acceptable to say about Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.   


What sort would that be?  

Quote of the Day - Eric Holder Edition Part 3

“This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him, both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Eric Holder on the uproar caused by Fast and Furious.


Gee, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that a man died could it?  No, of course not.  it is Raaaaacism.  What else could it be.  


Please tell me when the race card will be maxed out.  

Quote of the Day - Eric Holder Edition Part 2

“If you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind, and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that can be considered perjury or a lie, the information that was provided in that February 4^th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.”

Eric Holder's defense of the letter given to congress that contained wrong and misleading information.  


Hmm, it would seem that they never gave this kind of benefit of the doubt to President Bush on the Iraq war.  They just insist that he lied.  

Shelia Jackson Lee's Tantrum at King Hearings

The boss from hell is a real piece of work.  She quotes herself in the third person, which I found very amusing.  She then continues to go on and on (and I really mean on and on) about the KKK.  I went online to try and find out when the last murder committed by the KKK was.  The most recent thing I could find was from 08 and it was a white woman who was shot at an initiation meeting.  She was there to get training to recruit new members.  I don't see that as a major issue.  I am in no way downplaying the dangers of an organization like the KKK, I am just saying that they are not an immediate threat to national security. 

The Department of Justice announced recently that the threat is real.  This coming from AG Holder himself.  Holder who has bent over backwards to give terrorists every single benefit of the doubt. The most recent comments from DoJ is that there is a threat to the public coming from homegrown terrorists almost every two weeks.  Sooner or later they are going to get it right.  Do you really want to be seen as the person who standing against the investigation into the root causes of how our young are being used to committ acts of violence against innocents? 



There are real reasons why this topic must be addressed. 

Oh, by the way Congresswoman, the reason that you don't see the people that are not cooperating in front of you is because they are not cooperating.

Quote of the Day - AG Holder Edition

"Think about that, when you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,"

AG Holder in response to questions on the DoJs handling of the Black Panther voter intimidation case. 

You see Eric, that is the very reason that you of all people should realize that when voter intimidation happens you should be first in line to prosecute.  No one in the United States of America should be denied their right to vote nor should they feel that they are in physical danger in order to do so.  By not putting the full weight of your office behind this you have used the same mentality that bigots did back in the day when "your people" were being denied and or intimidated. 

The Rude Awakening of Eric Holder

Eric Holder gave an interview to ABC news about homegrown terrorism.  To me this was eye-opening, not so much for what he said, because the threat to our homeland is real.  What is interesting to me is that he admits it at all. 

Before Holder became AG he worked at a firm that went out of its way to help free enemy combatants at Gitmo.  This must have been a rude awakening for Mr. Holder.  So many on the left refuse to believe that we are not only in danger, but they have no low.  The Bush administration was doing what it felt was necessary in order to the keep the American public safe. 

One of the many ironies of the left is the outrage of the Patriot Act.  The left was screaming that Bush was trampling all over the constitution and violating the human rights of all Muslims.  The Patriot Act came up for renewal and no changes were made.  While I am no fan of the Patriot Act, I realize that there are ways we can protect ourselves and still safeguard our liberties.  I guess even Holder has learned that you can say anything while campaigning, but when you are sitting in the chair and making the decisions after looking at all the intelligence it is quite a different story. 

The left can continue its ridiculous claim that these people are being entrapped, but the reality remains if someone came up to me and talked to me about setting off a bomb, I would not be going along with it, I would be calling the police.  Anyone that is willing to go that far into the plan is not being entrapped, they are being evil. 

Holder's Defense of Obamacare

Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius took to the Op-Ed pages of the Washington Post today to counter the ruling that Obamacare's mandate is unconstitutional. Not that this should surprise anyone, but they feel that Obamacare will eventually be called constitutional when all is said and done. What else are they supposed to say? What is interesting is not what they said, but how they said it. They trotted out the car insurance analogy that the left always seems to go to. Not that these pesky little facts should have to be pointed out again, but we will explain to you one more time just so you can be clear.

1. There is no federal law requiring anyone to purchase car insurance.
2. States require insurance for the damage you cause to someone else's vehicle, not what you do to your own.
3. There is no requirement to purchase a car.
4. If you do not drive on publicly funded roads, you do not need insurance. If you never remove your car from your property, it does not need to be insured.

In the case of health care all you must do is breathe. There is no comparison between the two. But, my very favorite part of the piece was the perfunctory victim that they have trotted out yet again. This time her name is Gail O'Brien. Sadly, Ms. O'Brien has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer and her job as a pre-school teacher doesn't offer insurance. She was delaying the timing of her chemotherapy because of the costs and her savings wouldn't last. A very sad story, indeed. According to the piece due to Obamacare, she is now able to obtain health insurance that will cover her treatments.

 I don't think you find people who will say that she shouldn't be treated and her life saved. But, read the sentence again carefully:

 In March, New Hampshire preschool teacher Gail O'Brien, who was unable to obtain health insurance through her employer, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of lymphoma. Her subsequent applications for health insurance were rejected because of her condition. With each round of chemotherapy costing $16,000, she delayed treatment because she knew her savings wouldn't last.

They themselves are admitting that she had enough money to purchase insurance before she was ill and chose not to. Which completely contradicts what they say later in the piece:

 If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it's essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

So the person that they are setting up of why the mandate is necessary is the person who causes the costs for people who carry insurance all the time to increase? It seems to me that she is not the best example to be highlighting. This woman took the chance of going without insurance and now is complaining that the costs are high for the medical care that she needs. Again, I am not saying that she shouldn't get care, but I don't think she has the right to complain about the risk she voluntarily took. I pay my health insurance bill every three months, even though I rarely use it. It isn't that I have so much money, but since I have had health problems in the past, I know how expensive the costs can be and I do it to protect myself. As my regular readers know, my insurance for the year 2011 has increased by more than 80% because the policy that I have used for the past five years is now illegal. So, because this woman took a risk my payments must go up?

  

If you read the entire piece no where is the answer to the breakdown of the arguments that the judge yesterday very clearly laid out. This is the attorney that is in charge over the federal court system in this country and he can't articulate where in the constitution it says that congress has the right to force us to purchase something? I am no lawyer, but I will tell you that decision yesterday was very easy to understand and well-reasoned. I don't think it is too much to ask that the Attorney General do the same instead of the playing the emotion card and basically just say that it is for the common good. He of all people should understand that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of emotions. I also would like to ask if Holder is so sure that this will pass the muster with the high court, why is he so opposed to a quick ruling? Could it be so that the groundwork for the law will be harder to dismantle the longer this drags on?

Cross Posted at PotLuck

Christopher Coates Testifies - Racial Politics at the DOJ

Christopher Coates, a career attorney at the DoJ, testified today in front of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission today.  It did not bode well for the Obama administration or Attorney General Eric Holder.  Mr. Coates, formerly with the ACLU, was directed by the Holder justice department to defy the legal request by the commission to testify about his actions in the case of voter intimidation against The New Black Panther Party. 

The evidence of the members of NBPP being racist is so clear cut that it doesn't even need to be addressed, the videos of him saying you need to kill "cracker" babies speak for themselves.  Not to say that in and of itself makes them guilty of intimidating voters, but it does prove that they are indeed racist against white people. 

One of the excuses that I have heard from the likes of Kirsten Powers, an admitted liberal, was that the reason that this case should have been dropped was the fact that no one complained.  Well, that excuse has been blown out of the water with the testimony today.  The law states that all that is necessary to be guilty is to exhibit behavior that could intimidate voters.  Such as someone standing outside a polling place wearing a KKK outfit would more than enough to intimidate black voters from going inside and to perform their constitutional right to vote.  A black man standing outside a polling both brandishing a weapon asking white voters how they felt by being ruled by a black man is in no way different.  Mr. Coates even used such an example during his opening statement. 

Assume that two members of the KKK, one of which lived in apartment building that was being used as a polling place, showed up at the entrance in KKK uniform and that one of the Klansman was carrying a billystick.  Further assume that the two Klansman were yelling racial slurs at the black voters who were a minority of people registered to vote at this polling place, and the Klansman were blocking entrance to the ingress to the polling place.  Assume further that a local policeman comes on the scene and determines that the Klansman with the billy club must leave but the other Klansman could stay because he was certified as a poll watcher for a local political party. 

 Mr. Coates also testified that Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee, made it perfectly clear that the department would not be pursing cases where the defendant was a minority and the disenfranchised voter was white.  As what happened with the Ike Brown case.  A black man who was found guilty of disenfranchising white voters in Mississippi in a district where whites are the minority of voters. Mr. Coates was the man who brought this case and was the attorney that prosecuted and won it.  The democratic party was also found guilty of disenfranishing voters.  Mr. Coates also made it perfectly clear that civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP, were very unhappy with the prosecution of Mr. Brown and did not want the case against NBPP to be pursued. 

Mr. Coates who had been promoted to head that department  during the Bush administration has given up that lucrative position due to outright hostility that he has endured since bringing the case against Ike Brown.  Once the Obama administration had taken office more and more of his authority was diminished.  Although, he was still the manager in charge and therefore would be held responsible for the work performed by the people underneath him.  This left him in a position to take a job in South Carolina which was a demotion.  Directly involved in the undermining of his authority is Loretta King; an attorney who has been sanctioned and personally fined for her race based behavior.  Mr. Coates also confirmed that the statements made at his going away party are accurate.  In which he said that he was leaving because the civil rights department no longer was interested in equal justice. 

It did not take long for the members that were assigned by the democratic party to come out and say that Mr. Coates was giving this testimony because of a political bias.  I saw that on the news in mid afternoon when Mr. Coates testimony ended about noon.  I am sure that they will be digging into any political contributions that he has made over the years, such as they did with J. Christian Adams.  Who in the past did give to republican candidates, but what was not as widely reported is that he also contributed to democratic candidates as well. 

Loretta King has a documented history of viewing her job as only protecting minorities instead of performing the job as equal rights under the law.  This is a problem not only for President Obama and AG Holder, but it is a problem for all Americans.  While the laws that were put into place almost five decades ago were necessary to protect minority voters, but that is not a reason to believe that only minorities can be discriminated against.  The Brown case proves that. 

Read his opening statement here.   

After you do, I think that you will come to same conclusion that I have come to, Eric Holder and President Obama have some xplain' to do. 

If you ever wondered why poll watchers are necessary, here is your answer.  If you have the time, get involved in the process to make sure that EVERY American has their constitutional right to vote protected.  Because it seems pretty obvious that if you happen to be white, the department of justice won't be. 

See some interviews performed right after the testimony concluded here

Murder and Victimhood in Manchester, CT

Omar Thornton walked into his workplace a few days ago and killed eight people and then himself.  Before turning the gun on himself he made a call to 9-1-1 and calmly explained his actions:

"They're treating me bad over here. And treat all other black employees bad over here, too," Thornton explained in a measured tone. "So I took it to my own hands and handled the problem. I wish I could have got more of the people."

He says he was victim of racial discrimination.  He and his union official were there to attend a meeting with his employer to be fired.  The company had video of him stealing beer to re-sell it. 

The beer distributor that he worked for says that they have no record of any racial discrimination claims made by him.  Having grown up in CT, I can tell you without hesitation it is very difficult to legally fire someone in that state.  The laws are all on the side of the employee, even without you being in an union.  The fact that his meeting also included his union official would make it even harder to fire him.  So, for it to reach this point, you can bet dollars to doughnuts that they had the goods to make a legal firing.  Another arrest has been made of an accomplice of the theft.  Another employee is also being investigated. 

What is one of the more disturbing parts of the aftermath of this story is the fact that his family is still hanging onto the race angel in this story.  They are trying to turn him into some sort of martyr for the cause of racism.  It would seem they have no concept of the fact that not only are innocent people dead, the families of the dead no longer have their loved ones. 

I have said many times before that racism still exists in our country, but the reality is the majority of people in this country want to get past it.  The current environment it has become increasingly difficult to do so.  Racism charges are all over the news.

Maxine Waters first line of defense is to cry racism.  Charlie Rangle is not far behind.  Waters has been the list of most corrupt politicians on and off for many years now.  Her husband sat on the board of a bank that received bailout funds after her using her power and influence to get a meeting for a bank that otherwise would not qualify.  She personally profited from this transaction.  That has nothing to do with the color of her skin, but the content of her lack of character.  Rangel uses much needed rent controlled living space for himself and his local offices.  A violation of his lease, and a slap in the face to the poor people that he represents.  He can't be doing all that badly if he makes 175K a year, has brownstone in Manhattan, and a condo in the Caribbean.  Again, this is not about his skin color it is about him using his power and influence in ways that he shouldn't be while the rest of us get screwed. 

There are real dangers to flaunting the race card.  Didn't President Clinton recently say that creating an atmosphere that allows individuals to think acting out in a violent way is an inevitable outcome to all the negative messaging that is being thrown out in the media.  I realize he was talking about "tea baggers", but isn't it the same thing? 

Thornton most obviously had problems.  Rational people don't bring shotguns to a work meeting.  The media of course isn't making this connection.  Shocker!  But this needs to be brought up.  His family almost sounds like they are justifying his behavior. 

For the sake of argument, lets suppose his boss was a racist.  Is a shotgun the way to solve that problem?  There are laws in place to handle these type of situations.  Without having much information on the company's workplace environment (No complaints recorded as far back as 2001) a final conclusion cannot be made.  But what we do know is that he viewed himself as a victim. 

That is what playing the race does, it turns you into a victim.  The constant messages that we are hearing about race of late only intensifies that.  Tea party people dislike Obama's skin color, it has nothing to do with fiscal conservatives being against the tax and spend policies that this administration is pursuing.  A typical view of Obama and black people being the victims, that people like Sharpton and the raaacism complex keep putting out there. 

These messages are also coming from high levels within our government, and they need to stop.  AG Holder said we are nation of cowards when it comes to race relations.  Well, Mr. Attorney General put your money where your mouth is and come out against the false charges of racism that are being bandied about.  These are very serious charges that have real legal consequences.  They are also charges that continue the narrative that people of color are victims; when what they are is Americans. 

The charges have been levied so often since Obama has taken office that they virtually lost all meaning.  That is except for those 8 families of the dead. 

For those that have come over from that filthy racist site, please just go away.  You are not welcome here.  I don't like false claims of racism, but what I hate even more is real racism.  

I'm Not Quite That Good

Bob Schieffer interviewed Eric Holder last week on Face the Nation.  He had a full half hour interview and never asked the Attorney General about the Black Panther Case.  Here is his explanation:




And people wonder why conservatives don't trust the media. 

Finally, A Member of Congress Questioning DOJ on Black Panther Case

I have to admit, that many people in the Virginia Area Tea Parties were hoping that Frank Wolf would not win his primary battle.  I was one of those people.  Frank Wolf has been in Congress for what seems like forever and his record is middle of the road.  There is nothing extraordinary about his service.  He has also voted for tax increases over the years.  But, this is a very blue area of Virginia so I guess he does what he needs to do to stay in office. 

I may just have to rethink my opinion, at least for now.  Pajamas Media exclusively received a letter that he will be sending out tomorrow. 

Go Frank!!

July 14, 2010







Mr. Glenn Fine
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530


Dear Mr. Fine:


In light of the recent testimony of Mr. J. Christian Adams before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), we urge you again to investigate the dismissal of U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. Over the last year, we have asked you on multiple occasions to investigate this matter to no avail. In light of the mounting evidence of improper activities in the department’s Civil Rights Division (CRD), we urge you again to immediately initiate an investigation into this matter.


There is something rotten happening at the department under your watch. Your continued refusal to investigate has been — and remains — inexcusable. One can only surmise that your failure to investigate stems from a fear of upsetting the department’s senior political leadership, some of whom could be directly tied to the dismissal of this case. However, as inspector general, you have a legal and moral obligation to go wherever truth takes you.


As you are aware from our previous correspondence, which we have enclosed for your review, this case was inexplicably dismissed last year — over the ardent objections of the career attorneys overseeing the case as well as the division’s own appeal office. Despite repeated requests for information by members of Congress, the press, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the department continues to stonewall efforts to obtain all information regarding the case’s abrupt dismissal. Recent events and information has compounded this troubling situation.


Mr. Adams was a career attorney with CRD before resigning last month in response to the department’s illegitimate instruction that he not comply with a USCCR subpoena. We are deeply concerned that the department, which is statutorily obliged to execute USCCR subpoenas, is in fact obstructing individuals from complying in this matter. We believe that this obstruction — aside from the many troubling actions surrounding the dismissal of the case — merits an investigation into the department’s enforcement of the commission’s statutory authority.


Additionally, we are concerned about revelations from Mr. Adams’ testimony that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, a political appointee, reportedly forbid CRD attorneys from bringing forward additional voting intimidation cases in which the defendant was a national minority. We believe that this allegation merits immediate investigation. There is no excuse for the selective application of federal law based on the whims of political appointees.


You should also be aware that Rep. Wolf has asked the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) to review your failure to investigate this matter. It is our understanding that the CIGIE’s Integrity Committee will be discussing your actions at its July meeting. We appreciate the CIGIE’s prompt attention to this matter and look forward to its response.


We urge you again to investigate the myriad of troubling issues surrounding the dismissal of this case. With the commission obstructed from fully conducting its investigation and the congressional majority turning a blind eye, the inspector general must be willing to ensure the integrity of the department. We appeal to you to fulfill the duties of your office.






Sincerely,


Frank R. Wolf
Member of Congress

Funniest Line of the Day - Bill O'Reilly Edition Part 2

Bill O'Reilly apologizes to Janet Reno

DOJ Whistler Blower with Megyn Kelly Part 2

This really is very stunning, but not at all surprising. Holder needs to be fired.

DOJ Whistler Blower with Megyn Kelly

I have blogged about this on numerous occassions.  Eric Holder should be fired.  The hypocrisy of Holder saying that we are cowards when it comes to race and for him to drop the charges against The New Black Panther Party when the evidence is clear that voter intimidation took place in Philadelphia is stunning.  Eric Holder Must Go!!!

See here, here, and here

This is long, but worth every minute. 

Calderon Continues his US Immigration Law Bashing & The Dems Are Loving It

The fact the President Calderon is bashing the new immigration law really doesn't come as a surprise.  After all, his country's economy would be in even worse shape if it not were for the billions of dollars that are sent back to Mexico from illegal aliens.  He is trying to protect his own in manner of speaking. 

What I find so offensive about this is the standing ovation.  Especially when two of the people who were applauding, we none other than Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder.  Both of which have admitted that they have not bothered to read the bill. 

I have an idea, let's adopt Mexico's immigration laws: 

“Having traveled into Mexico last year to various cities on the Baja Peninsula, a distance of more than 1,000 miles round-trip, we were stopped more than 20 times at various checkpoints. At most of those stops, we were told to exit the vehicle and we were subjected to rigorous inspections. Where does Mexican President Felipe Calderón get off with his hypocritical outrage at our Senate Bill 1070?”



The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.”

If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.