Fast & Furious Docs Released

from Sharyl Attkisson:

The Department of Justice improperly withheld public documents related to Fast and Furious after the first Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for them several years ago. The agency was recently forced to produce some of the materials to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which filed a FOI lawsuit to obtain the information. (To date, the Justice Department still has not complied with FOI law in providing the same public documents to me as a FOI requestor.)

Fortunately, Judicial Watch has posted the documents for public review.

The Justice Department is still withholding thousands of documents. The thousands of documents provided are often heavily redacted. A review of hundreds of pages so far has revealed no obvious, legitimate basis under which President Obama should have invoked executive privilege, as he did, to withhold them public from congressional subpoena and other public reviews.

read more

Another Clue to a National Police Force

By: the Common Constitutionalist

A little while ago I wrote an article on what I think Obama meant when he said “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

You may link to that article here.

When I first heard it I thought, okay – maybe it’s beefing up the FBI or this whole NSA thing. Now I know that’s not it. It’s much more dangerous.

It’s the desire for a nationalized police force and now I’m wondering if he’s not the only one who desires such a thing. I wonder if some in Congress have the same idea. That or they are just too gullible and reactionary to see what’s going on.

This nationalized police force can’t happen all at once – no one would ever accept that. Like all leftist ideas, it must be incremental and opportunist. The architects, whoever they are, must be prepared to react when a “good crisis” arises so as to not waste the opportunity. Opportunities like Michael Brown, Eric Gardner and Tamir Rice.

We on the side of freedom must be vigilant and watch for signs of progress toward their end – no matter how subtle or unconnected they may seem. read more

Holder To Ban Religion In Terror Probes

While reading the following article, ask yourself why? What could be the administration’s possible motivation? Is it just political correctness gone amuck, the obvious affection for the Muslim Brotherhood or something else – something far worse? Something like the want to invoke Martial Law if another attack occurs. Whatever the motivation, it appears the administration is inviting another attack.

 

from IBD: According to NBC News, the Justice Department will soon prohibit religious profiling in terror cases. The move, if true, would completely blind federal law enforcement to the threat from Islamic extremism.

Already, the department has forced the FBI to bleach references to “Islam” and “jihad” from its counterterrorism training materials. It’s also made it harder for agents to infiltrate radical mosques.

But Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly now wants to make it illegal for agents to even consider religion in their investigations.

Democrats on the Hill are cheering the changes, along with the ACLU and radical Muslim Brotherhood front groups, who have all lobbied the administration for them. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has seen several of its officials jailed on terror-related charges, calls it “a step in the right direction.”

Appearing before the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee in 2012, CAIR demanded the administration remove religion as a factor in terrorism investigations, even though just four years earlier Justice had named CAIR an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator. read more

A Privileged Executive

Executive Privilege and how the House should move forward legally

by: Mark Levin

As the Supreme Court recognized in US v. Nixon, the Executive Branch has a legitimate interest in confidentiality of communications among high officials so that the President can have the benefit of candid advice. However, as President Washington himself recognized, that privilege does not protect the President or his underlings from embarrassment or public exposure for questionable actions.

As the Supreme Court has also recognized repeatedly, the Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, has the essential power to investigate the actions of the Executive Branch.

 In this case, the exercise of Executive Privilege seems, in its timing and over-inclusiveness, to be nothing less than a political delaying tactic to prevent exposure of wrongdoing and incompetence that resulted in the murder of a American law enforcement agent and injury and death of many others. Further, a wholesale claim of privilege is facially improper: the President should be held to the standard that anyone claiming privilege is held to: identify each document in a log so that privilege can be disputed. (U.S. v. Nixon, 1974)

 Because among the categories of documents sought are all those relating to the recantation by Holder of testimony before Congress, the demand goes to the core of the Congressional power under Article I. In this respect, this is not a general or oversight inquiry but a determination of why the Attorney General of the United States testified falsely before Congress about his own knowledge of a federal program. Presumptively, none of this category of documents is protected by Executive Privilege for wrongdoing per se is not protected by the privilege.

 The right way to proceed is to hold Holder in contempt by resolution of the House and seek authorization from the House for the Committee, by its Chairman, to proceed by civil action to compel production of the documents. (Holder will not enforce a holding of contempt against himself — and by the way, he should have authorized, say, the assistant attorney general for legal counsel, to handle the contempt matter once the House voted as at that point he is representing his own interests and not those of the nation generally). Chairman Issa should file suit in federal court in DC and seek expedited action. There is no need for Senate action. The use of this procedure has been acknowledged by the Congressional Research Service in a 2007 study. Further, a privilege log should be sought by Issa and ordered produced immediately by the court, in camera inspection done promptly by the judge, and a final order entered compelling production of all documents for which no legitimate reason justifies Executive Privilege.

 Yes, some documents may be covered by EP, 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. The Constitution is far too important to be subject to the caprice of this President and an AG who, on its face, wants to be free from scrutiny about why he testified falsely before a Committee of Congress.

Executive Privilege is a very important implied executive power, used in various forms since the presidency of George Washington. Therefore, it’s misuse and abuse, to cover-up wrongdoing, conceal embarrassing information, or advance a political agenda, diminishes the ability of future presidents to assert it legitimately.

Let My People Vote!

by: the Common Costitutionalist

The Huffington Post writes that Attorney General Eric Holder told members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Conference of National Black Churches last Wednesday that the right to vote was threatened across the country.

“The reality is that in jurisdictions across the country, both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common and have not yet been relegated to the pages of history,” Holder told the audience, made up of black church and political leaders, during a faith leaders summit in Washington.

Foul! Foul! Separation of Church & State! Sorry; couldn’t resist.

“If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and will approve that change,” Holder said. (comment: which would be never) “When a jurisdiction fails to meet its burden in proving that a voting change will not have a racially discriminatory effect, we will object.” (comment: which would be always)

Once again, as it always is with this administration, it’s all about race.

HuffPo continues by stating that Voter ID laws, which require voters to present official government identification before they cast a ballot in an elections, have become a hot-button issue this election cycle.

Ooh; official government identification.What is this, Nazi Germany; “Papers Please”. You mean like a driver’s license or non-drivers state I.D.? That official identification?

HuufPo claims that critics of the voter I.D. laws say that the groups most likely to be harmed by the rules — blacks, Latinos, the poor, and college students — are groups that are key parts of the Democratic voting bloc. Name one college student that doesn’t have a photo I.D.?

A study of “Voter Disenfranchisement” was done by the ultra-liberal Brennan Center for Justice. What a shocker, I know. I bet they found all but white males are “disenfranchised”.

Their “study” found the restrictions fall into five major categories: (1) requirements that voters provide specific kinds of government-issued photo ID to vote or have their votes counted; (2) requirements to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register and vote; (3) new restrictions on voter registration; (4) cutbacks on the availability of early and absentee voting; and (5) actions permanently depriving previously incarcerated citizens of their right to vote.

So, first you have to prove who you are by showing a photo I.D. Tragic! Get your butt down to the DMV and get an I.D. It costs less than a couple of packs of smokes these days. Heck, some states are starting to give them out. All you have to do is get there.

Second: You have to actually prove that you are a citizen to vote? Those bastards!

Does this sound as asinine to you as it does me?

Third: The new restrictions are that states are finally figuring out the “Same day Registration” nonsense. It makes it harder to cheat when they have time to check. States are also wising up to the phony “ACORN” type registration drives, where dead people,  Mickey Mouse & Abe Lincoln are mysteriously registered to vote.

Fourth: Early voting is a complete crock. It’s not as if election day just sneaks up you. You should kinda know when it comes around. Do voters have no responsibility in this country?

Fifth: They describe it as “incarcerated citizens”. Call them what they are, felons, and almost all can regain their right to vote after they’ve done their time.

The bottom line is, these so-called advocates for the “disenfranchised” just want the right to continue to cheat if they so choose and we are racists if we stand in their way. If any citizen is “disenfranchised”, it is because they choose to be.

I’ve compiled a list of things, off the top of my head, for which one would need a photo I.D. I’m sure there are many more but here are some that come to mind.

To get a job, many employers require to see a photo I.D. You need an I.D. to test drive and purchase a car, to open a bank account, to close a bank account, to buy a house, to rent an apartment, to apply for any loan, to buy booze, to buy cigarettes, to receive welfare, unemployment or food stamps.

 I think that covers folks in all three of the classes in which we like to lump our citizens; Upper class (the evil rich), the sacred middle class and the disenfranchised lower class (the poor).

 As long as one never has to do, or purchase, any of those things, I guess they wouldn’t need an I.D.

Voting should be treated as a privilege in this country. I’ve spoken to more than just a few immigrants from communist countries about this subject. They tell me it’s absurd that so many in this country take the vote for granted. They’re right!