Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Youtube RSS

Archive for Category : News: Government


Mark Levin Outlines ‘The Right Way To Proceed’ To Get Holder Documents

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Mark Levin Outlines ‘The Right Way To Proceed’ To Get Holder Documents

Last night, radio host Mark Levin outlined the five steps that should now be taken to compel Attorney General Eric Holder to produce Operation Fast and Furious documents

“There is no need for Senate action,” Levin explained. Instead, he said, a civil lawsuit should be pursued by House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

Levin outlined what he believes is “the right way to proceed”:

  1. Hold Holder in contempt by resolution of the House.
  2. Seek authorization from the House for the Committee to proceed by civil action to compel production of the documents.
  3. Chairman Issa should file suit in federal court in DC and seek expedited action.
  4. A “privilege log” of all documents for which Executive Privilege is claimed should be sought by Issa and ordered produced immediately by the court.
  5. The judge should promptly inspect all documents and then compel production of every document for which no legitimate reason justifies Executive Privilege.

Some documents may, indeed, be covered by Executive Privilege, Levin said, noting that the general concept of privilege is important so that the president can confidential receive candid advice from his advisors.

“But the blanket attachment of that label flouts the law and the Constitution, and harms the legitimate assertion of EP by Presidents of either party in the future,” he qualified.


Video: WH Press Secretary Forgets Name of Slain Border Patrol Agent

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Jay Carney forgets the name of the border patrol agent Brian Terry killed with guns from operation “Fast and Furious” (June 21, 2012).

There is an impeachment process, … it’s occurring on November 6th.


Rush: Obama Created Crimes With Gunrunning

Original Article - Rush: Obama Created Crimes With Gunrunning

Radio giant Rush Limbaugh is coming down hard on the Obama administration’s “Fast and Furious” operation today, calling it “liberalism on parade” in a misguided attempt to promote stricter gun control in America.

“The whole point of Fast and Furious was to create mayhem in Mexico among drug cartels with American-made weapons easily procured so that you and I would stand up in outrage and demand tighter gun laws,” Limbaugh said.

“It was deceitful. It was sneaky. It was going against the will of the American people. It was liberalism on parade. It’s who these people are. They want tighter gun laws.”

The White House today tried to undercut a congressional investigation of the scandal in which the Department of Justice allowed guns to be sold and delivered to Mexican drug cartels by announcing tens of thousands of documents were covered by executive privilege.

This afternoon, a House panel voted to place Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with a subpoena for the documents, defying Obama’s assertion of executive privilege.

All 23 Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted for the contempt resolution, while all 17 Democrats voted against it.

Limbaugh explained Obama and his officials were actually creating crimes.

“There’s no other way to characterize this,” Limbaugh said. “They created, they manufactured crime. They enabled crimes. They saw to it that American guns ended up in Mexican drug cartel hands. And, of course, those people get the guns, they use them. When, in fact, it probably was difficult for the drug cartels to get the guns. It probably was not easy for the drug cartels to get the guns. Certainly not walking into gun stores in Phoenix and elsewhere, then crossing the border.”

“It would be no different than if they wanted to ban airplanes, to engineer a bunch of crashes,” he continued, providing an analogy. “If this bunch wanted all airplanes grounded, [they] sabotage a bunch so they crash, and the people [of] the country demand that all airplanes be grounded. They wanted these guns that were used in these crimes to come from America. They made it easy for the drug cartels to get American guns.”

Limbaugh said Obama is seeking an assault-weapons ban, but he resorted to the “Fast and Furious” tactic because he could not get a ban through the regular political process.

“It’s kind of like if you’re NBC and you want to illustrate that certain trucks are dangerous,” he explained, referring to real-life 1992 shenanigans performed by NBC’s “Dateline” program and its reporter Michelle Gillen.

“You put an explosive in a gas tank, and then you turn on the truck and remotely drive it down the road. Then you trigger the explosive remotely, the truck blows up, and you claim the truck’s dangerous. Then you get the truck off the road. But it’s only dangerous ’cause you at NBC blew it up. NBC did that for a TV show.”

The Fast and Furious operation led to the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.


David Duke Endorses Leading New York Democrat

Original Article - David Duke Endorses Leading New York Democrat

The Democratic Party is facing an awkward problem Thursday because white supremacist David Duke has endorsed a leading candidate in the Democratic Party’s primary race for a New York House seat.

Duke says he’s endorsing Charles Barron, the leading candidate for the 10th district primary on June 26, because of their shared emnity toward “zionists.”

Barron is an African-American city politician who has been slammed as an anti-white racist and as a Jew-hater. However, he’s already got the endorsement of the retiring Democratic congressman, Rep. Edolphus Towns.

If Barron wins the June 26 primary, he’s a shoo-in for election in November because the district is overwhelmingly Democratic.

His election would be unnerving for many Democrats, including Jewish Democrats. Recent polls say that traditionally high support among orthodox Jews for the Democratic Party is declining toward 50 percent.

Duke’s endorsement of a Democrat also muddies routine claims by progressives that many conservatives and libertarians are motivated by racism. GOP supporters say their beliefs are motivated by American idealism and old-style liberal ideas of tolerance and freedom.

In recent days the Democratic establishment, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, has reacted to Barron’s advance by supporting his rival, Hakeem Jeffries, a state assemblyman.

Duke is a famous racist who ran as a Democrat and as a Republican in multiple Louisiana races during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

He now portrays himself as a supporter of “diversity,” and as a non-violent proponent of laws that encourage whites and African-Americans to live separately.

“In an election of limited choices, I think Charles Barron is the better choice [because] there is no greater danger facing the United States of America and facing the world than the unbridled power of zionist globalism,” Duke declared in a June 21 video.

The video appears on his website, whose banner declares, “For Human Freedom and Diversity.”

Duke, who was once a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and who established the National Association for the Advancement of White People, decried Barron’s support for affirmative action, and his controversial statements that endorse violence against whites.

“I certainly disagree with Barron’s extreme racist, even violently, anti-white rhetoric,” he said, while blaming “Jewish extremists” for racial divisions.

African-Americans and whites “want the same thing — they want the right to associate together in their schools and communities,” he said.

Duke did not explain how the law should treat blacks and whites who wish to live in an area dominated by the other group, or how the segregationist policies would be enforced.

But the real enemies, he said, are “zionists,” meaning Jews.

They “want constant conflict between the two groups so they can use a divide and conquer strategy to rule over us all.”

Jews, and “the international robber-zio-banks… [and] the zionist clubfed,” he said, are “the ultimate real enemies of both our peoples.”

This article has been updated to reflect that Hakeem Jeffries is a state assemblyman, not a New York City councilman.


Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to Second Amendment: FU

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to Second Amendment: FU

“Calling tougher gun laws pivotal to Chicago’s crime-fighting strategy, Mayor Rahm Emanuel [above] said Wednesday he would do whatever it takes to protect the legal integrity of the city’s firearms ordinance, a portion of which was overturned by a federal judge,” suntimes.com reports. “Emanuel refused to say whether he would appeal U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan’s ruling, or simply rewrite the overturned section used to deny a man a gun permit because of a prior misdemeanor conviction.” Blood not boiling yet? Take your heart meds and make the jump for the money shot . . .

Emanuel said he would await Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton’s recommendation before deciding which way to go. But the mayor said he is determined to preserve the ordinance one way or another.

“The reason we have gun laws — the reason I’m trying to also pass tougher gun laws down in Springfield — is because it’s an essential complement to your overall crime strategy,” Emanuel said at an unrelated news conference.

“And we will adjust. I’m waiting for Steve’s comments, but we will do whatever we need to do to continue to pursue getting guns off our streets and out of the hands of gang-bangers and drug dealers.”

Except, I dunno, increasing the detection, arrest and conviction rates for said miscreants. Or, for that matter, allowing their potential victims to arm themselves—as is their Constitutionally-protected right—in some kind of weird ass deterrent deal.

Apparently, Rahm’s crime fighting strategy also involves getting rid of kids. Or warehousing them. Or something.

“You cannot have just more cops on the street. It’s part of a comprehensive strategy you’ve heard me talk about. … Our crime strategy is putting more police on the street and getting kids, guns and drugs off the street.”


Denver Neighborhood Bans Children From Drawing Chalk Art On Sidewalk

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Denver Neighborhood Bans Children From Drawing Chalk Art On Sidewalk

Denver mom Sarah Cohen says drawing sidewalk chalk art is one of her three-year-old daughter Emerson’s “simple pleasures in life.”

“It’s definitely better than video games,” Cohen told KCNC.

However, the homeowner’s association in Cohen’s neighborhood feels differently. They say Emerson’s drawings — usually of hearts and flowers — are distracting and offensive blights on their community.

“My initial reaction was, ‘You have to be kidding me,” Cohen said.

The association, called Innovations and Courtyard Traditions at Stapleton, temporarily banned children from drawing on sidewalks, saying anything that offends, disturbs or interferes with the peaceful enjoyment is not allowed on shared spaces.

They said neighbors have been complaining about chalk drawings like Emerson’s.

The group’s attorney told the station that the association is going down a path of “do no harm” and is temporarily banning the chalk art until it is discussed in depth at a later meeting. It will then be up to the residents to decide if the art will be permanently banned.

Cohen said she has not personally received any complaints from neighbors, and her daughter will continue to draw as a sort of mini protest against the temporary ban.


Pelosi: Holder Contempt Vote is Part of Republican Voter Suppression Scheme

Original Article - Pelosi: Holder Contempt Vote is Part of Republican Voter Suppression Scheme


RUSH: We now have the official… it took a while, about 24 hours, the official Democrat Party response to the contempt citation voted by the committee yesterday against Eric Holder. It comes from Nancy Pelosi. This morning in Washington, this is what the former Speaker said this is all about.

PELOSI: It’s really important to note how this is connected with some of their other decisions. It is no accident, it is no coincidence, that the attorney general of the United States is the person responsible for making sure that voter suppression does not happen in our country.


RUSH: There you have it.

PELOSI: That issues that relate to the civil liberties of the American people –

RUSH: There you have it.

PELOSI: — are upheld.

RUSH: That’s right.

PELOSI: These very same people [who] are holding him in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote.

RUSH: We need a new planet. We need a new planet called Stupider, and I need to put Nancy Pelosi on it as the mayor of the whole planet, as the governor, as the evil emperor, whatever. I knew yesterday that it would take a while for these people to come up with an explanation, “Well, it’s common. Well, every president does it. Well, this is just a witch hunt.” But I never dreamed, because I can’t think this stupidly, I never dreamed that the official Democrat Party response would be that the Republicans intend to cheat in the election and Holder was gonna stop ‘em, and so Holder has to be stopped because he was gonna stop the cheating. That’s what the mayor of the new planet Stupider, Nancy Pelosi, said this morning in Washington, DC. The very same people holding Holder in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote. (laughing)


RUSH: Just to repeat, let’s go back. Grab sound bite 21. Here we have the official Democrat Party explanation for the attorney general, Eric Holder, being found in contempt of Congress.

Well, of the committee, not the whole House yesterday.

PELOSI: (haltingly) It’s really important to note how this is connected with some of their other decisions. It is no accident, it is no coincidence that the attorney general of the United States is the person responsible for making sure that voter suppression does not happen in our country, that issues that relate to the civil liberties of the American people are upheld. These very same people [who] are holding him in the contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote.

RUSH: There you have it. That’s what it’s all about, folks. (laughing) Planet of Stupider. This is the same Nancy Pelosi who says she could have arrested Karl Rove any time she wanted, but she didn’t because she was responsible.




Holder Will Lose Executive Privilege Fight

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Holder Will Lose Executive Privilege Fight

President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Eric Holder from complying with congressional subpoenas on the Operation Fast and Furious fiasco will blow up in the White House’s face. But not for the reasons you’ve heard on the first day of this legal fight.

Some Republicans are saying—and some media commentators are reporting—that executive privilege only applies when the president himself is involved. That’s incorrect as a matter of law.

It’s important to get this right, because some are suggesting that today’s invoking of the privilege means Obama himself is involved, a smoking gun that could make this the next Watergate. Not true. The White House might be involved, but we don’t know one way or another… yet.

As I’ve written before, there are two types of executive privilege. One is a strong form rooted in the Constitution, called the presidential communication privilege. But there is another type, much weaker and rooted in common law instead of the Constitution, called the deliberative process privilege. That second, weaker variety is what President Obama invoked today regarding Holder.

It’s still the White House asserting the privilege, because only the president can assert executive privilege for his entire administration. (Except that the vice president can also assert it, but only for matters directly involving the VP.) So Obama has invoked it on Holder’s behalf.

Others are also incorrect in saying executive privilege only applies to military matters, diplomatic secrets, or national security situations. The courts have repeatedly held that executive privilege covers much more than that, most recently in 2004 in Cheney v. U.S. District Court, where the Supreme Court considered whether the VP’s conversations with energy industry leaders was protected by the privilege. Executive privilege is strongest when those three issues are on the table, but it’s broader than that.

There are several factors courts look to. The most important is whether the president was involved, since that determines which privilege (presidential communications versus deliberative process) is in play. Beyond that, several factors weigh in favor of Congress and against Holder here. This was domestic policy (not foreign), in an operation out of an agency (not the White House), where crimes may have been committed, and none of the president’s constitutional prerogatives are implicated by the case. Factors favoring Obama are that this is not legislative policymaking, and it does have a diplomatic angle because of relations with Mexico. But surveying 200 years of court precedent shows that Congress has the better claim here.

The only way to beat an executive privilege claim is by court order. To take this issue to court, the full House must vote to hold Holder in contempt of Congress, then—when federal prosecutors predictably inform the House that they will not prosecute their boss—the full House must pass a second resolution authorizing Rep. Darrell Issa to file suit in the U.S. District Court for D.C. on behalf of the entire U.S. House.

Holder will lose the court fight. He’ll appeal, of course, but eventually the appeals will be over, and we’ll all learn the truth of what really happened in Fast and Furious.

And whom to hold accountable.

Breitbart News legal contributor Ken Klukowski is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law, and author of Making Executive Privilege Work, published by Cleveland State Law Review.


Did Supremes Tip Obamacare Vote in Union Dues Case?

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Did Supremes Tip Obamacare Vote in Union Dues Case?



RUSH: The Supreme Court had a couple decisions today. One of them, big whoop, the FCC didn’t warn Fox and CBS early enough so the F-word was fine as it happened on TV. The F-bomb was inadvertent, the FCC didn’t tell ‘em soon enough not to do it or what have you.

Then there was a 7-2 decision where the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals got slapped down along with the Service Employees International Union. Now, in and of itself, it’s not monumental. Well, I could be wrong about that. Some of these Supreme Court decisions, it takes a while for me to digest them. Let me tell you what the decision is first. The Supreme Court today ruled that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop unions. The SEIU argued that their once-a-year warning was sufficient. The court said, no, it’s not. The court said that unions have to give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases.

So if you’re a nonmember of a union but you’re working in a union shop and the union decides to raise dues or whatever, they have to tell you immediately so that you can decide whether you’re gonna accept the new fee and pay it, or not. That’s what the court just decided. I don’t want to make too big of a deal out of this, but I want to read to you from the majority opinion. I’m gonna be very, very brief. “The majority thus decides, for the very first time, that the First Amendment does require an opt-in system in some circumstances [for union dues]: the levying of a special assessment or dues increase.”

Now, it’s not that big a leap to think that if the court says that for the first time, the majority for the first time, that the First Amendment does require an opt-in system. Meaning, you have to be told before they can make you do this. It’s not that big a leap to think that the court is of the same opinion when it comes to health care and striking down the mandate. So I don’t know. Off the top of my fertile mind, which I’m sure in subsequent e-mails that I will receive in mere moments, will be shot down by legal scholars. In my fertile mind, I’m thinking this could be a tip, a tip-off, an indication. I’m not saying that it is, and I’m not saying that Justice has intended that with the release of this opinion today, but it’s interesting, it’s a 7-2 decision.

originalHowever, two justices wrote their own opinion because they wanted to dissent from that aspect of the decision. Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented from the opinion, but Sotomayor and Ginsburg said they did not join the majority opinion that the First Amendment requires an opt-in system. You could say that it was 5-4 on that provision, not 7-2, because Sotomayor, the wise Latina, and Ginsburg dissented from that aspect in the majority opinion. So on the notion of an opt- in, it was 5-4, not 7-2. Doesn’t turn out that way, but I’m just telling you the way if they could have voted provision by provision.

In and of itself the decision is interesting ’cause it slaps down the Ninth Circus and it slaps down the SEIU, who are able to simply levy increases whenever they wanted with nobody being able to opt out of it. And what happened was a nonmember by the name of Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the SEIU wanted to object and opt- out of a $12 million special assessment that the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning. Knox said, (paraphrasing) “I don’t want my money going the way you’re gonna spend it.” Now, she’s not a member. She’s a nonmember working in a union shop, and she didn’t want to pay this special assessment. And they said, “Well, you didn’t opt- out in time.”

She said, “I didn’t know that I had to.”

“Well, we warned you every year that you have the opportunity.”

“Well, I didn’t see it, I forgot about it.” It went to court, and the Supreme Court said to the SEIU, “You’ve gotta tell ‘em when you’re gonna do this and you’ve gotta give ‘em notice and you’ve gotta give ‘em a chance to opt- out of it.” I don’t know, some might say, Pelosi’s office, they might call it a bitch slap, I don’t know. (laughing) On the Planet of Stupider. But it is pretty big in the sense that now the union has to tell people, nonmembers, at least according to this decision, that if they’re gonna raise dues for campaigns or whatever, these nonmembers have a chance — (interruption) Well, I don’t know if it applies all over the country or just in California. I don’t know what the jurisdiction is.

That’s why I say there’s always more to learn about these things. This stuff comes out this morning and with all the other show prep, there’s not enough time to delve fully into this. That’s why I want to leave it open ended. Basically what happened here is that the court struck down the money-laundering scheme, is what happened here, at least in California, the SEIU there. The vote was 7-2. We see that even Elena Kagan is further to the left than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but it’s another blow to the DNC’s fundraising mechanism. They just can’t raise money arbitrarily, special assessment, raise dues, however you want to characterize it, for political purposes. They have to give these nonmembers a chance to opt- out, and that’s big. So the money-laundering scheme suffers a bit of a hit.




Krauthammer: Mainstream Media Can No Longer Ignore Fast & Furious

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Krauthammer: Mainstream Media Can No Longer Ignore Fast & Furious

“It has several immediate effects,” syndicated columnist and FOX News contributor Charles Krauthammer said about President Obama using executive privilege to protect Attorney General Eric Holder from the Fast & Furious investigation today.

“The first is, as you mentioned in the grapevine, there’s no way that the mainstream media, which have studiously tried to ignore this can do that anymore. In fact, as you pointed out, NBC, which has shown exactly ten seconds of coverage of this on its Evening News in the last year-and-a-half, is now going to have to explain the whole thing since the viewership has no idea what it’s about. So, number one, it becomes huge national issue,” Krauthammer said on a special edition of the panel on FOX News’ “Special Report” broadcast this evening.

“Secondly, it involves the president. Not that he was involved in the actual communications but he is the one that has to issue the, as to authorize the claim of executive privilege. Once he does that, clearly he is connected even though it’s not — it wasn’t claimed on grounds of presidential communications, which is the first way to do it,” Krauthammer analyzed.

“Nobody is saying it was the president, it was communications with the president which are now being protected. It’s being claimed on a second level of executive deliberation, meaning something happened inside the Justice Department,” he said.

Krauthammer also said this could come back to hurt the Republicans.

“But the final effect could be the one that hurts Republicans. As you have heard, from the talking point of Democrats in Congress, this will be characterized of another case of overreaching, obstructionism, opposition, blind opposition to the administration and distraction of real economic legislation or activities. And that is the line that the Democrats will take. it could, in fact, hurt Republicans among some of the electorate,” Krauthammer explained.


Rove: Pelosi ‘Sounds Like Mad Red Queen’ With Arrest Threat

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Karl Rove said Rep. Nancy Pelosi was “dead wrong” when she suggested Wednesday that she could have had him arrested.

“The only way I could have been arrested is if the House adopted the resolution, which it did not,” the Republican operative and former adviser to President George W. Bush told Fox News on Wednesday night.

“So, it’s nice to know that Speaker Pelosi wanted to have me arrested. It’s nice to know that she thinks she had the power to, but we’re still a nation of laws and she has no authority to do so and had she attempted to arrest on any of the number times that I was in and out of the Capitol, without a resolution passed by the entire House of Representatives, she would have been up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle.”

Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, made her comments Wednesday after House Republicans moved to pursue contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Eric Holder.

“I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day,” the California Democrat told reporters. “I’m not kidding. There’s a prison here in the Capitol. If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him.”

The former House Speaker said while “any number” of charges could have been brought against Rove, “there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress.”

Rove said Pelosi was guilty of speaking in hyperbole.

“You know, she sounds a little bit like Inspector Clouseau and a little bit [like] the Mad Red Queen, but Speaker Pelosi was dead wrong in her assertion today and I’m sure she had a good laugh and it’s nice to know that she dreams of slapping me in her own personal jail. But she didn’t have any authority to do it,” Rove said.


Rubio Calls On Holder To Resign (Video)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Senator Marco Rubio speaks at the Monitor Breakfast on June 21, 2012.


Pelosi Promises to Replace ObamaCare’s Mandate if Struck Down, Insists “You have to eat your vegetables.”

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Pelosi Promises to Replace ObamaCare’s Mandate if Struck Down, Insists “You have to eat your vegetables.”

Answering questions from reporters today, Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi previewed her party’s likely legislative response should the Supreme Court strike down ObamaCare’s health coverage requirement, suggesting that Democrats will look for a functional alternative to the mandate — a way to mandate insurance coverage without running afoul of the Constitution:

You have to eat your vegetables — you have to have the mandate in order for this to work from a financial standpoint…If Americans like the idea that they and their children cannot be deprived for a lifetime of health care insurance because of a pre-existing health care condition, then that will require some other action if that is to happen. And what would that be? There could be something passed in the Congress, similar to what we had originally in the House bill, which was a surcharge on the wealthy to pay for aspects of that … States can take their own actions.

[Via ThinkProgress.]

“You have to eat your vegetables,” eh? A poor choice of words given the critical emphasis on the question of whether an insurance mandate would allow Congress to mandate the purchase of other private goods, such as broccoli? Maybe so, but in context the reference seems intentional. After insisting that the mandate was “iron clad constitutionally,” Pelosi brought up the broccoli question explicitly: “Let’s hope and pray that the Court will love the Constitution more than it loves broccoli and that we will have a decision that is based on the merits and the Constitution of the United States.”

The political prospects for a mandate alternative of any sort won’t be strong in the immediate wake of a high court ruling striking down the current requirement. But Pelosi’s remarks make it clear that regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, some Democrats will still want to explore alternative means of asserting congressional power to mandate coverage.

Last year I took a look at a number of possible mechanisms that might replace the mandate.


Pelosi Rips Holder Contempt Charges: ‘I Could Have Arrested Karl Rove on Any Given Day’ (Liar!)

Original Article - Pelosi Rips Holder Contempt Charges: ‘I Could Have Arrested Karl Rove on Any Given Day’ (Liar!)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi attacked House Republicans for pursuing contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday.

“I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day,” Pelosi said on Wednesday, The Huffington Post reports. “I’m not kidding. There’s a prison here in the Capitol. If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him.”

“Oh, any number” of charges could have been brought against Rove, Pelosi said. “But there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress.”

Pelosi also criticized Republicans pushing for justice for Border Patrol agent Brian Terry — as House oversight committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings has on numerous occasions — as “just strictly political.”

“It’s just the irresponsibility of the Republicans,” Pelosi said. “We want jobs. Why are they spending this time doing this?”

Pelosi attacked House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa too. “‘Loose cannon’ would sort of be like such a compliment to Darrell Issa,” Pelosi said. “‘Loose cannon’ would be a moderate phrase. This is an explosive device. It doesn’t serve our country, and it undermines the true purpose of contempt of Congress.” (GUILTY AS CHARGED: Issa’s committee approves Holder contempt citation)

“That’s why I didn’t arrest Karl Rove when I had the chance,” Pelosi added. (DOC BLOCK: Obama invokes ‘executive privilege’)It’s unclear if Pelosi is aware Rove did not serve in a Bush administration position that’s identical to Holder’s in the Obama administration. Rove was a senior policy adviser — a position that’s more similar to Valerie Jarrett’s or David Axelrod’s on President Barack Obama’s team. Holder is the attorney general, the top law enforcement official in the United States. Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami wouldn’t answer when The Daily Caller asked if Pelosi was aware of the distinction.

Rove was not immediately available for comment.


Scumbag Chris Matthews Slimes GOP as Racist for Going After Holder: An ‘Ethnic’ ‘Stop-and-Frisk’

Original Article - Scumbag Chris Matthews Slimes GOP as Racist for Going After Holder: An ‘Ethnic’ ‘Stop-and-Frisk’

Liberal MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews on Tuesday slimed the House GOP investigating Attorney General Eric Holder as racist, insisting that the possible contempt charges over Fast and Furious had an “ethnic” feel. Using charged, racial imagery, Matthews demonized, “Is this sort of stop-and-frisk at the highest level? Go after the attorney general, get him to empty his pockets, stand in the spotlight.”

The Hardball host, who had previously been ignoring the Fast and Furious scandal, changed course and portrayed the whole thing as a bigoted witch hunt. Talking to former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, Matthews speculated: “I don’t want to start too much forest fire here, but it is my instinct: Is this ethnic, Mr. Mayor?” [See video below. MP3 audio here.]

The left-wing journalist weirdly speculated as to Congressman Darell Issa’s motives: “If he can humiliate this guy, if he can get to him, he’ll be a big star in the Republican caucus. He’ll be Dick Nixon.”

Congressman Richard Nixon became a “star” in 1948 by exposing communist spy Alger Hiss. Hiss, of course, was very guilty. So, perhaps this is not the best metaphor for Matthews to use.

Showing just how little he had covered Fast and Furious, Matthews asked Wade Henderson of the Leadership Council, “Explain Fast and Furious.” His viewers could be forgiven for not knowing anything about it.

A transcript of the June 19 segment can be found below:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Up next, when Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, their real prize, of course, was the subpoena power. They have got it and they are using it to go after the attorney general. Is this sort of stop-and-frisk at the highest level? Go after the attorney general, get him to empty his pockets, stand in the spotlight as long as they can and see if anything happens? That’s ahead.

MATTHEWS: That was the House Oversight Committee chair, Darrell Issa, behaving in his usual way, two weeks ago hammering Attorney General Eric Holder for not turning over documents related to the so-called Fast and Furious campaign, the flawed gun tracking operation carried out by the ATF. Shortly after that, Issa set a vote to hold Holder in contempt of court, or contempt of Congress rather, for tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Holder and Issa just wrapped up a meeting, by the way, a few moments ago, after which Issa says he’s still waiting for the documents he wants and hopes to get them tonight, or wants to get them tonight. Willie Brown is a former mayor of San Francisco, former speaker of the California House, and Wade Henderson is the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Let me go to Wade first because I want to understand is there any reason why we should put any trust in the good intentions of Darrell Issa here?
WADE HENDERSON (Leadership Council): None at all, Chris. Chairman Issa is pursuing a politically motivated witch hunt that’s designed to discredit the Justice Department and to force Attorney General Holder to resign. He’s using Fast and Furious as the vehicle to pursue that witch hunt. But the truth is, nothing could be further from the factual bases for him making the assertion about Holder’s lack of cooperation.

MATTHEWS: You know, when I look at this, Willie Brown, Mayor Brown, I just look at it- and I don’t mean to use this term too much- but it’s almost like a stop-and-frisk. Here’s a chance to humiliate a distinguished member of the United States government, the attorney general- and everybody knows- close friend of the president’s. It’s a surrogate operation. If he can humiliate this guy, if he can get to him, he’ll be a big star in the Republican caucus. He’ll be Dick Nixon.

WILLIE BROWN (Former mayor of San Francisco): That’s what he thinks, but obviously, that will not be the case, Chris. There are too many Republicans, I think, that are responsible and responsible enough to know that you’re, you don’t go down the road that he’s going down in terms of contempt of a cabinet member. You just don’t do that unless it’s similar to what occurred with reference to the Bush administration when two members were cited in some manner or another for doing what they did of his staff. After that, there’s nothing that you can justify such conduct. Other than the fact that you’re leading kind of a lynch-like mob.

MATTHEWS: Well, let’s got to some of the things that Issa before he even heard of this case. He was looking for a case. He said when he got, before he even took the oath for this Congress, Issa, the congressman look what he said. November 8th, 2010, before he took the oath, I want seven hearings a week times 40 weeks. He didn’t say what they were for. I’m just going to have lots of hearings. He also said — what’s your jurisdiction? He said “we own everything.” This is megalomania.

HENDERSON: Chris, you know, Attorney General Holder testified at least eight times before Congress. He has turned over thousands of pages of testimony. He is the only attorney general that actually appointed an inspector general or referred a matter to an inspector general for review, and he ended the program which was the subject of controversy. Rather than investigating, for example, Attorney General Mukasey, who started the actual program under debate, it was called Operation Wide Receiver, Mukasey has not been before the committee, we’ve had no discussion or with ATF officials, who were involved. It was A.G. Holder who actually disciplined some of the ATF officials who were involved. So the truth is this isn’t about the facts regarding Fast and Furious. This is about creating a climate where the A.G. is going to be discredited and will resign.

MATTHEWS: You know, I worked on the Hill. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Willie Brown. You know, you are not supposed to make the come ad hominem comments about someone else. You saw the tape where he makes fun of Attorney General Holder by you are not my kind of witness. You are not a good witness. What’s this? You get to be the teacher and you get to reprimand the student? I mean, the kind — I have never seen it aimed at a cabinet member before.

BROWN: It really means you should not be given any opportunity to exercise power. Chris, when you receive the mantle of leadership on the power side, it automatically imposes up on you a higher level of responsibility than this congressman seems to be able to discharge. He’s got to be somewhat of an embarrassment to his colleagues just by his heavy handedness.

MATTHEWS: Let me — I want to you take — give us a narration here. Darrell Issa, the attorney general, what’s been going on here? How long has this been building?

HENDERSON: This has been building for months. As you pointed out, Darrell Issa was determined almost from the outset of him holding the gavel that he was determined to hold one member of the administration in some degree of difficulty because of their actions. He focused on Fast and Furious. Obviously this was-

MATTHEWS: Explain Fast and Furious.

HENDERSON: Fast and Furious was a gun-walking program where guns were purchased in the United States, taken across the border back to Mexico, and distributed by individuals who had no license or right to purchase –

MATTHEWS: And the idea was to track them.

HENDERSON: We were tracking those guns to find out where they went and hoped to buy the purchaser — to get the purchaser as well as the recipient. It was started under the previous administration. General Mukasey actually had Operation Wide Receiver which was the precursor of Fast and Furious. It ended up with in the depth of officials who were involved with the U.S. government and ATF official, I believe, was killed. But this was a terrible operation. It should never have taken place. Much to his credit, Attorney General Holder ended the program, he disciplined ATF officials who were involved. He convened and — inspector general to take a look at the issue. He testified over eight times with the Congress and he’s provided thousands of documents-

MATTHEWS: And your theory is with this guy Darrell Issa, his goal is to push this further into rub the guy’s face into it.

HENDERSON: Absolutely. And to force the attorney general to resign as a discredited official. Now, here’s what’s ironic — there has never been an attorney general held in contempt of Congress. There’s never been a vote by the House of Representatives on the contempt citation. To do it now against Eric Holder is to ignore all the facts of the case and to use a fiction to promote this kind of political agenda and I hope that both members of the Democratic Party as well as Republicans will see this for what it is.
MATTHEWS: I don’t want to start too much forest fire here, but it is my instinct: Is this ethnic, Mr. Mayor?

BROWN: I think it has some ethnic flavor to it. It will be interrupted by some in that vein.

BROWN: And you have to be careful you don’t give the opportunity to make that case factually and what Darrell Issa is doing is — has given some individuals the opportunity to make that case and to compare it to a stop and frisk.
MATTHEWS: Well, I just did it because — it smells like it to me and I think there is a disdain on the part of some Republican, not all. Certainly not Boehner. But some of them down in the rank and file, red hot end of the team, that do talk down to the president and his friends absolutely.

Crush Marxism!
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Boycott The Home Depot!

Take The Traditional Marriage Pledge!

Defend Marriage and Stop President Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab

Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Twitter Feed
Follow @wewintheylose (20454 followers)
Welcome , today is Friday, June 22, 2012