Obama/Holder Could Face Felony Charges for Fast and Furious

Doug Book,FloydReports.com

Why waste time asking “What did you know and when did you know it?” when the
Obama Regime might already face felony charges?

That’s the question Attorney David Hardy and others are asking those
investigating the role of Regime members in the deadly gun walking fiasco,Fast
and Furious.

Since whistleblowers
brought this scheme to the attention of Congress early this year,Senator Charles
Grassley and Congressman Darrell Issa have been frustrated
by Department of Justice stonewalling,subterfuge,and
misrepresentation.

As Grassley wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder in a July 18th
correspondence,“If the attorneys working on the [Justice] Department’s response
to the Committee spent less time redacting documents and more time producing
them,we would be much closer to understanding the failures in leadership
surrounding Operation Fast and Furious.”

But it is Hardy’s contention that….

Read
more
.

Golfing While the Constitution Burns

Golfing While the Constitution Burns

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

 

When Barack Obama and John Boehner played golf this weekend, they played
on the same team
. How appropriate.

Barack Obama has violated the Constitution’s war-making power – reserved by
Article I, Section 8,
to Congress – from the moment he sent American troops into harm’s way without
Congressional approval. He has been violating the War Powers Resolution since at
least the 60th day of that campaign. And he has violated the most
liberal reading of that act – the one Boehner has adopted as his own – since
this weekend. Yet despite the letter
Boehner authored last week, which the media presented as an “ultimatum,”
Obama has neither obtained Congressional authorization nor removed our troops.
Boehner’s
letter weakly supplicated
“I sincerely hope the Administration will
faithfully comply with the War Powers Resolution,” but at least it seemed to set
this weekend as a definitive cut-off point.

The “deadline” has come and gone, and Obama has not answered the most burning
questions of the mission’s legality to anyone’s satisfaction. Instead, the
president has thumbed his nose at Congress in general, Boehner in particular,
and the American people at large, and the Speaker-cum-caddy has made no
meaningful response whatsoever.

Obama insists the American role in Libya is too diminutive to constitute
“hostilities,” so his action is perfectly legal. White House spokesman Jay
Carney repeated
his boss’s party line at Monday’s press conference, stating, “the War Powers
Resolution does not need to be involved because the ‘hostilities’ clause of that
resolution is not met.” However, soldiers in Libya are receiving an additional
$25
a month in “imminent danger pay.”
American drones still rain missiles down
upon military targets. NATO is alternately
bombing
Muammar Qaddafi’s home
and killing the innocent Libyan civilians they are
purportedly protecting. (We had to kill the civilians in order to save them?)
NATO admitted (at
least
) one of its bombs went off target on Sunday, killing
nine civilians in Tripoli
, while allied bombs allegedly killed
15 civilians in Sorman on Monday
.

Not to worry, though; Defense Secretary Robert Gates said over the weekend,
in a confidence-builder worthy of Churchill, “I think this is
going to end OK.”
Gates, who once
opposed
the Libyan adventure, has pulled
a 180
on the matter.

Even Obama’s short-term fellow Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, agrees
Libya more than rises to the level of hostilities.

So, too, we have learned, do the best legal minds of Obama’s administration
(not a coveted nor much-contested title, I assure you). In overruling
his own lawyers, Obama rejected the
considered conclusions
of Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel,
and Caroline Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC). The New York Times reported
it is “extraordinarily rare” for any president to overrule the OLC. “Under
normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding
on the executive branch.”

But then, nothing in the Obama administration transpires under “normal
circumstances.”

Two former OLC lawyers outlined precisely how unusual the dismissal was….

Read
more
.

Obama’s DoJ Promises to Keep Serving Muslim Interests

Obama’s DoJ Promises to Keep Serving Muslim Interests

December 13th, 2010

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

Here’s a measure of just how subservient our present leadership is to American Muslims: Attorney General Eric Holder is reassuring Muslim groups that the Justice Department will continue persecuting prosecuting their enemies after they “raised concerns” the feds were   unfairly targeting the Religion of Peace. The trouble, it seems, is that   the Justice Department keeps arresting Muslims trying to blow their   adopted country to Mahdi-come. According to TheBlaze.com:

Attorney   General Eric Holder reiterated his resolve to prosecute hate  crimes while standing behind the methods used in anti-terrorism cases  during a     speech Friday night before a Muslim advocacy group near San     Francisco.

Speaking to Muslim Advocates, a San Francisco-based   group, Holder    told the group that he’s heard from many Muslim and  Arab  Americans who    feel uneasy and singled out by law enforcement.

The   organization is one of several groups voicing concerns over   hate    crimes, alleged rights violations at the hands of law enforcement   and    the tactics used in anti-terrorism cases.

Carefully-crafted  sting  operations by FBI and Justice Department    officials have  included plots  against a Portland, Ore., Christmas    celebration,  Dallas skyscrapers,  Washington subways, a Chicago  nightclub   and New  York’s John F. Kennedy  International Airport.

(You can read more of Holder’s groveling here.) A patriotic Attorney General may have asked his hosts why it is the DoJ arrests Muslims, and only Muslims, ready to perpetrate religious violence against the United   States. He would have had the guts to challenge Muslims to assimilate   into the mainstream of the United States or enjoy their privilege of   living under their theocratic code of Shari’a law — in some country that follows it.

If Muslims in America paid greater allegiance to the United States than they do to the worldwide Islamic ummah, they would….

Read more.

Obama Admin Threatens to Sue AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Obama Admin Threatens to Sue AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio

August 18th, 2010

Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

The Obama administration has decided to get tough on illegal immigration…enforcement. The Washington Post reports today that Eric Holder is threatening to sue America’s toughest sheriff, Joe Arpaio if the sheriff does not help the administration continue a second frivolous lawsuit against him:

Justice Department officials in Washington have issued a rare threat to sue Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio if he doesn’t cooperate by Tuesday with their investigation into whether he discriminates against Hispanics…a federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining whether Arpaio has used his power to investigate and intimidate political opponents and whether his office misappropriated government funds, sources said.

That sounds serious. It’s not. Apparently “civil rights groups accuse the 78-year-old lawman of racial profiling,” as they do everyone else. (The Department of Homeland Security has estimated that 62 percent of all illegal immigrants are from Mexico, and even more from other Latin American nations. This suggests a potential profile.) In addition, “some Maricopa County officials say Arpaio has launched meritless corruption investigations against officials who have criticized his policies or opposed his requests” — so they’re launching a meritless investigation of Arpaio.

The Attorney General is demanding compliance even as his Justice Dept. is stonewalling an investigation into charges levied by a former employee that the department turns a blind eye to black crimes.

Left-leaning prosecutors do not see any merit in the case against Arpaio. Former Justice Dept. prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg, who helped prosecute Scooter Libby and donated $1,400 to Barack Obama in 2008,  said, “I don’t know what a charge would be…I’m not aware of any federal statute that would fit.”

Even the Post couldn’t help but notice the odd timing: “The standoff comes just weeks after the Justice Department sued Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R) over the state’s new immigration law, heightening tensions over the issue ahead of November’s midterm elections.” This is merely a second front in the administration’s crackdown on its own citizens (on behalf of non-citizens).

Although it is unclear how he could win or hope to keep his case from being laughed out of court, Holder said he expects his case to “produce results.

That phrase reveals everything. The intention is not justice but harassment. This threatened lawsuit is simply the latest bout of federal thuggery, extortion, and intimidation against the Obama administration’s critics.

This prosecution of those who uphold the law on behalf of those who transgress the law represents Barack Obama and the Washington Democrat’’s modus operandi: every decision they make is 180-degrees from reality.

Obama will not enforce federal immigration law but is suing a state that offered to help Washington pick up the slack.

Although Obama does not want to investigate the funding of the Ground Zero mosque, Nancy Pelosi said yesterday she will “join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded.”

The president would not comment on the “wisdom” of putting a mosque on the site of the worst act of Muslim terrorism on U.S. soil (so far), but he has called police officers stupid for arresting a hostile suspect and auto officials avaricious for refusing a hostile union takeover.

He refuses to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party (who voted for Obama) for threatening to beat white voters (who have voted against him), but instructed his Dept. of Homeland Security to spy on housewives and veterans who oppose abortion or gay marriage (or, yes, illegal immigration).

Michael Reagan points out in his column today that Obama has no time for Boy Scouts or the National Prayer Breakfast but he has hosted an Iftar dinner surrounded by Muslims. (He also held a Seder that reportedly commemorated the struggle for socialized medicine.)

This is the logical outcome of an administration that believes we must tax our way into prosperity, “spend money to keep from going bankrupt,” cower our way into respect, expand health care by reducing the number of doctors, bow our way into dominance, and balkanize our way to unity.

See No Radical Islam, Hear No Radical Islam

Posted By Ryan Mauro On May 17, 2010 @ 12:18 am In FrontPage | 10 Comments

On May 13, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) confronted [1] Attorney General Eric Holder about whether radical Islam was the motivating factor in the terrorist plots against the United States over the past year. Rather than acknowledge the religious-ideological threat posed to us, Holder continued the Obama Administration’s pattern of trying to avoid using terms like “radical Islam” and “Islamic terrorism.”

Rep. Smith repeatedly prodded at Holder, who tried to fend off the attack by saying, “There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious.”

Unsatisfied with the lack of clarity, Rep. Smith continued to ask him, “Are you uncomfortable attributing any other actions to radical Islam?” Holder replied by saying, “No, I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion…”

Finally, Holder conceded, saying “I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to make an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad,” referring to the American who tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square as part of a plot by the Pakistani Taliban.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, made her language more realistic in February when she flatly stated [2] to the Senate, “Violent Islamic terrorism…was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings.” She obviously went the extra mile after she was criticized for saying her agency was preparing for “man-made disasters” instead of “terrorism,” telling [3] a German newspaper that she was trying to “move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

The Obama Administration as a whole, however, is trying to avoid using such terms as much as possible. Neither the Quadrennial Defense Review nor the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review even mention “Muslim” or “Islam,” instead [4] focusing on “non-state actors” and “Al Qaeda and global violent extremism.” The National Security Strategy document likewise will no longer mention “Islamic extremism,” removing [5] the portion that says that “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

This removes the religious-ideological component from the assessment. Al-Qaeda is pinpointed as the main enemy, but the driving force behind the terrorist group is not. Instead, Al-Qaeda is one among many violent extremists, rather than a symptom of a specific disease. Furthermore, it narrows the war down to Al-Qaeda, apparently drawing a distinction between them and groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Taliban, the latter of which was once said [6] by the Administration to contain “moderate” elements that could be included in a political process.

On April 6, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair spoke about intelligence reform. He did not mention “the War on Terror” once, instead referring to “countering violent extremism.” The State Department’s top terrorism official, Daniel Benjamin used [7] the same term but did a better job in defining the threat by referring to “counter-ideology initiatives.” However, he talked about “delegitimiz[ing] the Al Qaeda narrative and, where possible, provide positive alternatives.” This again pinpoints Al-Qaeda as the enemy when the problem encompasses many more jihadists, many of whom disagree with Al-Qaeda’s narrative on some levels but still promote Sharia Law.

President Obama has dropped the term “War on Terror” from the vocabulary, believing it has negative connotations in the Islamic world, and uses the term “justice” instead of “democracy” for the same reason when promoting reform overseas. Phrases like “overseas contingency operation,” “a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm,” and “countering violent extremism” are used to today to vaguely define the conflict.

The thinking behind these changes is that U.S. foreign policy is what creates terrorists and jihadists. The violence these groups take part in occurs out of frustration over political disagreements, and if the U.S. can successfully convince the Islamic world that the West is not waging war on their religion, such groups will be defeated.

A few statements by President Obama provide a window into what he feels creates terrorists. On January 5, President Obama said [8] that Guantanamo Bay was “an explicit rationale for the formation of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” a statement that is incorrect [9] on its own terms and is incorrect in its inference that U.S. policy is the decisive factor in a decision to carry out terrorism on innocent civilians.

During the presidential campaign in May 2008, President Obama told [10] The New York Times that “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”

He went on to say that Hamas and Hezbollah need to be convinced that their violence is hurting their “legitimate claims,” but did say that Hezbollah was “not a legitimate political party” and recognized the influence Iran and Syria has over them. He did not explain what “legitimate claims” Hamas and Hezbollah have, but the quote shows that he attributes their existence to political causes.

The Obama Administration has been using John Brennan, the special assistant to the President for counterterrorism, to discuss its efforts to fight terrorism. In some cases, his words sound positive. He said [11] that the term “War on Terrorism” was dropped because “by focusing on the tactic, we risk floundering among the terrorist trees while missing the growth of the extremist forest.” This sounded like a recognition that some radical jihadists use other methods to reach their objectives. However, in that same speech, he placed emphasis on Al-Qaeda, saying the Administration will fight them “aggressively wherever it exists” but will not define the campaign as a “global war” because it “only plays into the warped narrative that Al-Qaeda propagates.”

In defending the language of the Administration, he said [12] “what we have to do is make sure that we’re not pouring fuel on the flames by the things we do.” Even the media coverage of his statements showed the change in perception from the previous administration. The New York Times described [12] Brennan as “helping Obama redirect the war against Al-Qaeda.” In other words, the war is specifically against Al-Qaeda and their collaborators, and their strength comes from a negative perception of U.S. foreign policy.

It is true that the war for the hearts and minds is critical, but it must be understood that radical Islamic terrorists view all the political conflicts through religious-ideological lenses. They are pursuing the establishment of their version of Sharia Law, as evidenced by their brutal attacks and oppression upon other Muslims. There is no “Al-Qaeda narrative,” as if they are the author of the ideology they espouse. Al-Qaeda and the other jihadists subscribe to an overall narrative provided by radical Islam and have some deviations based on interpretation.

The words of the very forces we face debunk the Administration’s analysis of what is the root cause of terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents have described its covert campaign in the United States as “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” The head of the Hezbollah in Iran has called [13] for a “Greater Iran” that extends from Palestine to Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden says that “The matter is summer up for every person alive: either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”

These are not the words of people simply opposed to U.S. policy. These are the words of Islamic extremists on an ideological crusade to dominate the West.

AZ Governor, Palin Criticize AG Eric Holder For Not Reading Law

May 16, 2010

AZ Governor, Palin Criticize AG Eric Holder For Not Reading Law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxnNeGTU8U8&feature=player_embedded

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin today launched an effort aimed at educating the country on the federal governments failure to secure our nations southern border and its failure to address the human tragedy that is occurring as a result.

Holder Uncertain if Radical Islam Influenced Terrorists The “ostrich approach”

 Holder Uncertain if Radical Islam Influenced Terrorists


Attorney General Eric Holder testifies before the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight hearing on the Department of Justice, Thursday, May 13, 2010, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)
Washington (CNSNews.com) – Attorney General Eric Holder hesitated to answer whether radical Islam was even a motivating factor for the individuals responsible for the Fort Hood shooting, the attempted Christmas Day bombing and the attempted Times Square attack.
 
“There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions,” Holder told the House Judiciary Committee. “One, I think just look at each individual case. We are in the process how of talking to Mr. (Faisal) Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.”
 
The question as to whether the individuals were incited by radical Islam came from the committee’s ranking member Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).
 
Smith followed, “But radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?”
 
Holder again said, “There are a variety of reasons.”
 
Smith later asked, “But all I’m asking is do you think among those variety of reasons, radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did?”
 
After a two-minute back and forth, Holder eventually said, “I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad.”
 
Holder also faced scrutiny from Democrats on the committee for his proposal to make changes to rules regarding Miranda warnings in terrorism cases. Holder said the public safety exception was crafted in the 1970s to deal with common criminals and questions such as “where’s the gun?”
 
“What we’re focusing on is the potential modernization and clarification of the public safety exception to give police officers greater clarity,” Holder told the committee. “Now, in 2010, with terrorist matters, modernizing a small sliver of the public safety exception only for terrorisms would be more effective.”
 
The attorney general added that law enforcement would seek to find out from a terror suspect if others are involved, if al Qaeda is involved.
 
“These are all questions we think can be appropriately asked under the public safety exception,” Holder said.
 
Democratic lawmakers cast skepticism on Holder’s proposal to reform the use of Miranda warnings when prosecuting terror suspects.
 
“Last Sunday, the attorney general unilaterally chose to inject the issue of statutory modifications to the Miranda public safety exception into the national debate,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said. “Although no specific proposals have been made, I believe the idea of such legislation is unnecessary and a mistake. “
 
The idea – not yet a formal proposal – would be a near about face if the Obama administration proceeds.
 
Holder first began talking about the change in Miranda warnings during Sunday morning interview programs, in the context of the attempted terrorist attack on Times Square in New York. This came after Holder and the Obama administration spent months defending the use of Miranda warnings against the suspected terrorist in the attempted Christmas Day bombing.
 
“As Attorney General Holder has said and has proven, and former Bush counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke has agreed, the current system has worked effectively,” Conyers continued.
 
“For example, the attempted Times Square bomber was interrogated using the existing public safety exception, and reportedly has provided extremely valuable information both before and after receiving Miranda warnings. Attempting to hastily alter an effective and constitutionally based system could actually undermine rather than enhance law enforcement efforts,” he added.
 
However, given the administration’s poor record in pouncing on terrorists, such a reversal was unexpected, Smith said.
 
“Treating terrorists like common criminals makes Americans less safe,” Smith said. “Giving terrorists the ‘right to remain silent’ limits our ability to interrogate them and obtain intelligence that could prevent attacks and save lives.
 
“You recently said that you now want to work with Congress to limit terrorists’ Miranda rights,” Smith continued. “That’s surprising since it is this administration that has insisted upon extending constitutional rights in the first place.”
 
Holder boasted about the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in capturing Shazad, the suspect charged in the attempted Times Square attack.
 
Holder said the Shahzad’s arrest for the attempted Times Square attack is just the most recent action in a string of arrests by the Justice Department.
 
“Shahzad has been identified, located and arrested. When questioned by federal agents, he provided useful information,” Holder said. “We now believe that the Pakistan Taliban was responsible for the attempted attack. We are currently working with the authorities in Pakistan on this investigation, and we will use every resource available to make sure that anyone found responsible, whether they be in the United States or overseas, is held accountable.”
 
Holder praised the department’s fight against terrorism. In January 2009, 14 people were charged in Minnesota in connection with travel to Somolia to train and fight with terrorist groups in Shabaab. David Headley was convicted of plotting to bomb a Danish newspaper and for his involvement in the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008.
 
Also, Holder cited that Christmas Day underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was charged with attempting to explode a passenger jet over Detroit. Finally, he pointed to the February conviction of Najibullah Zazi for conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction in trying to blow up the New York subway system.
 
But Smith contended that the administration’s record is nothing to be proud of.
 
The Christmas Day bomber’s “attack was thwarted by a poorly made bomb and alert passengers.” The attempted Times Square attack “was stymied by his ineptness and alert pedestrians.”
 
“Our national security policy should consist of more than relying on dumb bombers and smart citizens. Sooner or later, a terrorist is going to build a bomb that works,” Smith said. “As commander-in-chief, the president is responsible for protecting the American people. Unfortunately, several of this administration’s policies have put Americans at greater risk.”

Eric Holder accidentally tells the truth

Eric Holder accidentally tells the truth

G. Wesley Clark, MD

Attorney General Eric Holder testified, to the House Judiciary Committee, while nervously scratching his brow, that the decisions of the Justice Department “are done in a political way”.  Most likely, he meant to say “in an apolitical way”, and tomorrow we shall be assured that he “mis-spoke” (in a Freudian way). 
Holder further asserted that the decisions of “this Attorney General” are made without regard to politics, and that “… right or wrong, the decisions that I make are based on the facts, and on the law …”. 
However, the part of the video clip that CNN left out was where, as reported on FoxNews, Holder admitted that he has not yet read the Arizona law, which is only 10 pages long. 
“I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it,” Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
and
When asked by Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas, how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: “Well, what I’ve said is that I’ve not made up my mind. I’ve only made the comments that I’ve made on the basis of things that I’ve been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel…looking at the law.” 
Therefore, ignorance of the facts and the law, and acceptance of the hysterical political media yammering about profiling were the only basis for Holder’s numerous criticisms, questioning the constitutionality of the statute, and of his threats to undertake federal legal action against enforcement of the law.  
As the old saying goes, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” – unless you are the chief law enforcement official of the United States of America. 

Freddie Mac asks for fresh 10.6 billion dollar bailout

Freddie Mac asks for fresh 10.6 billion dollar bailout

AFP – Thursday, May 6
Troubled US government-backed mortgage firm Freddie Mac on Wednesday asked for an additional 10.6 billion dollars from the Treasury Department to cover losses.

WASHINGTON (AFP) – – Troubled US government-backed mortgage firm Freddie Mac on Wednesday asked for an additional 10.6 billion dollars from the Treasury Department to cover losses.

Announcing a 6.7 billion dollar loss in the first quarter, Freddie Mac said it would need the new funding by June 30 this year.

The Washington-area company has already received more than 50 billion dollars in taxpayers cash to cover losses from toxic assets.

It warned that further demands would be on the way: “Freddie Mac expects to request additional draws,” the firm said in a statement.

“The size and timing of such draws will be determined by a variety of factors that could adversely affect the company’s net worth.”

In 2008, the government pledged to ensure that Freddie Mac, and its larger sister organization Fannie Mae, kept a “positive net worth.”

The deal was designed to prop up the vital US housing market from collapsing totally and pushing the economy over the precipice.

But in a sign that the US housing sector is still in difficulty, Freddie said the percentage of its loans not paid on time or in full rose to 4.13 percent in the first three months of the year.

In the final three months of last year the rate stood at 3.98 percent.

The future of Fannie and Freddie has become the latest bone of contention between Democrats who argue they must remain government-backed to aid low-income housing and Republicans who advocate their privatization.

In March, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner swatted aside pressure for a swift reform of the mortgage giants as data pointed to a still struggling real estate market.

Geithner told Congress any restructuring of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which received a 100-billion-dollar-plus government bailout at the height of the housing crisis, “must be done as part of a reform of the wider housing finance system.”

Geithner argued reforms would “take several months” to develop and should only be “enacted and executed at a time of greater market stability.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers