Monday, July 2, 2012

Muslim mob assaults Christians in Dearborn, Michigan

Posted by BH

For the past few years, some Christians who attended the Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, have encountered vicious verbal abuse, in at least one case a physical assault, and some of the Christians have even been arrested! The good news is, the arrests have been thrown out.

Now, in the shocking video below, a Muslim mob vents its anti-Christian rage in a modern version of stoning. They throw eggs, water bottles, and other projectiles at a small group of Christians holding signs at this public event. In effect, the Muslim mob wants to make this public event a “Muslim only” event—a version of the “no-go zones” prevalent in France.

The police do virtually nothing to restrain the Muslim assailants. In fact, near the end of the video you’ll see the police threatening the Christians with disorderly conduct! The police position is that the Christians are endangering public safety by saying things that are enraging the Muslim mob.

The message is clear—it’s not the violence that endangers public safety, it’s free speech that the mob wants to silence that endangers public safety.

Similar Muslim mob violence has occurred in Europe and the UK.

Now it’s here.


Posted by BH

Arizona flag SC Border States Must Protect Their Legal Citizens
If I am stopped somewhere between my house and downtown (which is only three blocks) for violating a driving law, such as running a stop sign, or speeding, or a number of a other violations, I am asked to present my driver license. This is to show that I am registered by my state to drive a motor vehicle.
Possibly in the beginning, this law upset some folks, but now that it has been on the books these many years, it’s accepted as a good law. This is the way drivers are identified as being legally authorized to drive, and also identifies those that are not legal drivers for some reason or another.
Sb 1070 is only a tool that Arizona can use to identify those that do not have legal authority to be roaming the streets, causing havoc, and destroying private or government property, and draining the tax paying citizens of millions of dollars in the way of welfare.

The Nation Vs. The Government

Posted by BH

constitution The Nation vs. The GovernmentThe government, as created by the Founders of the united States of America, was separate from the Nation, or the People. It was a government of (owned by) the people, by (elected representatives) the people, and for (the good of) the people. 
Until the election of Abraham Lincoln, that was pretty much the case. There were some instances of special interests interfering in the smooth operation of the government (The National Bank), but they were beaten back. The Civil War changed all of that.
The States were not allowed to exercise their right to secede from the Union. Rather than the war ending slavery for the black people of the Nation, the white people were put in bondage as sure as bondage is.
In Canada there is, or was, a law that stated that a woman who asked for a divorce three times and didn’t follow through was precluded from filing a fourth time. She then became as good as a slave to the husband. That is about the same thing as what happened when the bankers funding the North in the American Civil War won the war. Of course, the bankers always win. They will win the election in November. They are the major backers of the Hair Do from


Posted By WP


Chief Justice Roberts Switches Vote... for Politics?

By Bobby Eberle
Could the 5-4 Supreme Court decision which upheld Obamacare have turned out differently? According to news reports, the answer is a resounding YES. The liberal group of justices were set, conservatives like Thomas, Alito, and Scalia were set as well. But Chief Justice John Roberts was supposedly ready to vote with the conservatives to strike down Obamacare... until he jumped ship.
As Jan Crawford reports for CBS News, "Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position."
Roberts formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The question is... why? Why would a man who is nearly universally acclaimed for his intelligence and knowledge of the law go back and forth? Could it be... politics?
In a piece by Charles Krauthammer, the logic (or illogic) appears to be a balancing act Roberts is playing between being a constitutional conservative and chief justice -- the person charged with maintaining the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Why did Roberts do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court's legitimacy, reputation, and stature.
As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration's central argument that the individual coverage mandate is a proper exercise of the authority to regulate commerce.
That's Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary's arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade.
Give me a break! Yes, Roberts and the court would take political heat for overturning Obamacare. But if it is unconstitutional... then guess what? It's unconstitutional! The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Period.
As for John Roberts... he's bolting the country for a while. As noted in the AP story on GOPUSA, Roberts will be teaching a class for "two weeks in Malta, the Mediterranean island nation." Roberts joked, "Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea."
Roberts appeared Friday at a conference hosted by the Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Circuit, one day after the Supreme Court said the federal government can require citizens to buy health insurance. The impromptu 35-minute session featured Roberts answering alternating questions from Chief Judge David B. Sentelle, of the D.C. Circuit Court, and Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who heads the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Neither judge asked Roberts directly about the health care decision.
Rather, Roberts responded with the Malta quip after Sentelle asked him whether he was "going to Disney World" now that the court has adjourned for the summer.
Whether it's Disney World or Malta... it's probably a good idea for Roberts to get out of town. As both Crawford and Krauthammer write, Roberts had more than just the law steering his decision. He had politics.    

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]


Posted By WP


The judge in a Florida lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president has dismissed the case “with prejudice.”
In his issued ruling Circuit Judge Terry Lewis agreed with White House attorneys that Obama’s eligibility could not be challenged under Florida election law because, technically, Obama hasn’t been nominated yet and furthermore, the judge said, Obama’s birth in the U.S. meets the Constitution’s requirements for being a “natural born citizen.”

The attorney challenging Obama’s eligibility, however, told WND the judge’s ruling is “intellectually dishonest” and so poorly written it makes an appeal “relatively easy.”
A fund has been set up for donations to cover legal expenses for the case.
As WND reported, Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” had challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the “natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.
Judge Lewis rejected Voeltz’s and attorney Larry Klayman’s arguments on three grounds.
First, the judge insisted, Obama’s candidacy cannot be challenged because he has not been nominated yet.
“The respective major political parties determine their nominee at a national convention [that hasn't occurred yet],” Lewis writes. “Thus, under Florida law, Mr. Obama is not presently the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office.
Second, the judge insisted, it’s not the Florida secretary of state’s job to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility.
Quoting Florida law, Lewis writes, “The secretary of state has no affirmative duty, or even authority, ‘to inquire or pass judgment upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running.”
Third, Lewis insisted, Obama should be considered a natural born citizen.
“The United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States,’” Lewis writes.
Then citing district and appellate court ruling from other states, Lewis adds, “Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of president of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”
As WND reported, Klayman had earlier suggested he would seek “declaratory relief” in the case, regardless of whether or not Lewis considered Obama “nominated” yet or not, a move Lewis appears to anticipate in his ruling.
“Plaintiff suggests the possibility of a declaratory judgment claim,” Lewis writes, “but I don’t see how Plaintiff, as an individual voter, would have standing to seek declaratory relief.”
Klayman, however, spoke with WND to break down what he says are glaring flaws in the judge’s ruling.
“The decision issued today by Judge Terry Lewis was poorly reasoned and written,” Klayman asserts. “It goes against prior Florida Supreme Court precedent in particular, thus making our chances on appeal great. … In any event, Plaintiff Micheal Voeltz filed a new complaint today for declaratory relief, which will, in addition to his appeal, now proceed forward. In short, we remain confidant that if the Florida courts ultimately decide to obey their own election law, we will prevail in the end.”
Specifically, Klayman objected first to Lewis’ assertion that Obama’s nomination is a matter for the Democrats’ national convention and not subject to Florida law.
“He basically said that a presidential candidate can never be nominated under Florida law, ever, and that’s just wrong,” Klayman said. “He made our appeal relatively easy, because he flies in the face of the Florida statute and also a Florida Supreme Court case. There’s nothing on which for him to come to this conclusion. The law is clear here that Obama was nominated for office.”
And as for the judge’s concession that Voeltz might have cause for an election challenge after Obama is elected president, Klayman scoffed, “That’s a disingenuous dodge.”
At the heart of the case, however, was the judge’s reasoning that a citizen born in the U.S. fulfills the U.S. Constitution’s “natural born” citizen requirement for the presidency.
“The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same,” Klayman continued in his analysis. “He quotes other state’s cases, where judges reached that conclusion, but that’s not precedent for him. What other courts said in lower cases means nothing to him.”
Klayman also bristled at the judge’s claim that the “burden of proof” fell upon Voeltz to demonstrate Obama’s ineligibility, despite denying Klayman’s team “discovery,” a process that may have allowed subpoena power of Obama’s identifying documents.
“How can you say we have the burden of proof, then not allow discovery?” Klayman asked. “He says we have burden, but doesn’t allow us to meet it. We’re entitled to discovery. That’s a very vulnerable part of this case going forward.”
Finally, Klayman marveled that the judge would declare his client doesn’t have “standing” for declaratory relief – a common argument many judges around the country have used to dismiss eligibility challenges without considering them on merit.
“That’s not true, we do have standing under Florida law,” Klayman said.
“The ruling is intellectually dishonest, from a Democrat judge who didn’t want to be put on the hot seat by his own party,” Klayman asserted. “We’re immediately appealing, and we’re confident on appeal. The main thrust of the judge’s decision is contrary to how the Florida Supreme Court has already ruled on when a candidate is nominated.”
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Report: Roberts Originally Voted to Strike Down Obamacare

Sunday, 01 Jul 2012 04:31 PM

Chief Justice John Roberts originally sided with conservatives who wanted to overturn Obamacare but then switched positions on the Affordable Care Act to ultimately side with liberal justices, according to a CBS report released Sunday.

The highly detailed report, quoting anonymous sources apparently close to the Supreme Court, reveals many details concerning the super-secretive negotiations that go on behind the scenes during major deliberations.

“Two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations" told CBS that Roberts originally sided with the four conservative justices in declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional.

Together, that 5-vote majority of justices would have struck down the entire law because they believed the mandate was essential to the entire system of Obamacare being able to function.

But while Roberts agreed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional under Congress' power to regulate commerce, he felt less strongly about whether the entire law should fall.

Roberts switched positions to side with the liberal justices, perhaps in response to increasing pressure from outside the Court to rule in favor of the law, CBS reports. The conservative justices tried to lobby him back, but he wouldn’t budge and in fact attempted to convince Justice Anthony Kennedy to join him on the decision to make the court appear more unified on the issue.

CBS also reports that Justices Kennedy and Antonin Scalia wrote most of the dissent, and that speculation that parts of the dissent were originally written by Roberts before he changed his mind are incorrect.

"He was relentless," one source told CBS of Kennedy's efforts to sway Roberts. "He was very engaged in this."

But Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The article suggests that Roberts was as concerned with his reputation and the Court's popular standing as he was with the merits of the case.

"Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public," the article states.

"There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

"Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint."

Read more on Report: Roberts Originally Voted to Strike Down Obamacare
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Boehner, Republicans Vow All-out Effort to Repeal Obamacare

The two top Republicans in Congress vowed on Sunday to push ahead with efforts to repeal President Barack Obama's healthcare law despite the Supreme Court upholding it, but the White House said it is time to stop fighting and start implementing it. "This has to be ripped out by its roots," House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said of the 2010 law on the CBS program "Face the Nation." Boehner added: "We will not flinch from our resolve to make sure this law is repealed in its entirety."
The House, controlled by Republicans, has scheduled a vote on July 11 to repeal the law. The Democratic-led Senate, as it has done in the past, is certain to block any repeal legislation.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the law, Obama's signature domestic policy achievement and the most sweeping overhaul since the 1960s of the unwieldy U.S. healthcare system. The ruling was written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court's four liberals.
"I think the thing that the American people want is for the divisive debate on healthcare to stop," White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on "Fox News Sunday."
"I think that what we need to do is get on with the implementation now, and that's what we intend to do," Lew added.
The healthcare law battle promises to figure prominently in the Nov. 6 election in which Obama is challenged by Republican Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor pushed through a state healthcare overhaul with provisions similar to Obama's plan.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday showed public support for the law rising to 48 percent after the ruling from 43 percent before the court's decision.
The U.S. system, unlike other rich countries, is a patchwork of private insurance and restrictive government programs. The United States pays more for healthcare than any other country, but about 50 million of the roughly 310 million Americans still have no insurance.
The law was meant to bring coverage to more than 30 million of the uninsured and slow soaring medical costs. Critics deride the law as "Obamacare" and say it meddles too much in the lives of individuals and the business of the states.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans will insist that the Democrats who control the chamber hold a vote before the election on repealing the law.
"If I'm the leader of the majority next year, I commit to the American people that the repeal of 'Obamacare' will be job one," he said on "Fox News Sunday."
McConnell said he would use a process called "reconciliation" in the 100-member Senate to permit a simple majority to pass a repeal of the law rather than the customary 60 votes. McConnell had criticized Senate Democrats for using that same process in passing the bill in 2010.
"Yes, that could be done with a simple 51 votes," he said.
"This is the single worst piece of legislation that's been passed, certainly in modern times. And it will be an issue, a big issue, in the fall election," McConnell said.
"We've got one last chance here to defeat Obamacare. We can do that in the November election," added McConnell.
McConnell labeled the law's "individual mandate" provision - requiring most people to obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a financial penalty - a middle-class tax increase.
Asked whether a similar provision in Romney's healthcare law in Massachusetts was also a middle-class tax increase, McConnell said, "Well, I think Governor Romney ought to speak for himself about what was done in Massachusetts."
The White House and fellow Democrats refuse to label as a tax the law's penalty on people who decline to obtain health insurance - even though the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" only because it was permissible under the congressional power to levy taxes.
"It's a penalty. It's something that only 1 percent of people - who can afford insurance and choose not to get - it will pay," Lew said on CNN's "State of the Union."
Nancy Pelosi, the top House Democrat, added on NBC's "Meet the Press": "It is a penalty for free riders."
Asked what Republicans would do - if they succeed in repealing Obama's law - to provide coverage to the tens of millions of Americans currently with no insurance, McConnell said: "That is not the issue. The question is how can you go step by step to improve the American healthcare system. It is already the finest healthcare system in the world."
"We're not going to turn the American healthcare system into a western European system," he added, referring to government-run systems that provide near universal coverage.

Read more on Boehner, Republicans Vow All-out Effort to Repeal Obamacare
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Sunday, July 1, 2012


Posted by BH

US supreme court building SC Supreme Court Exposed Obama Health Care While Defending It
CNN originally reported that
the Supreme Court found that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of the commerce clause and that it appeared as if the Supreme Court had struck down the individual mandate. Then CNN followed up by saying that the court actually did uphold it under the taxing clause, with a narrow reading of the U.S. Constitution. People are calling this a screw-up.
Both reports were correct.
Five to Four, the Supreme Court has said that although the individual mandate (that everyone must obtain health care coverage) does not stand via the commerce clause, in essence it stands via the provision in the U.S. Constitution for Congress to tax the American people. This is because people who do not obtain coverage will have a fine “taxed” onto their yearly income taxes, via the IRS 1040 income tax form and/or another form.Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress is allowed to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
The Supreme Court is not saying that the health care law in and of itself is constitutional, as per Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. But instead, it is saying that taxing people who don’t have coverage is constitutional under this section because it is viewed as “Providing for the general welfare of the United States.” By saying this, they are not saying “general welfare,” as in our personal health care welfare. it is saying that the taxation is needed for the “general welfare,” as in the fiscal welfare of the United States (the money.)
In other words, the court is saying that if Congress feels that the fiscal (monetary) welfare of this nation is harmed by people who do not obtain health care coverage, that it is in the best interest of this “general welfare” of the United States to tax such people in order to make up some of the revenue that is lost each year by uncovered hospital visits, doctor visits, etc. This is because otherwise, the cost largely goes to taxpayers and people who do pay for health care coverage, which hurts the overall economy.
What was exposed:
Basically, the Supreme Court has said Obama’s health care act’s core reason for being is in fact to place a tax on people who already cannot afford health care coverage.
Obama had sworn he would not put any new taxes on anyone earning under $250,000.00 a year. Many of us were fully aware that he was lying, as were many of us fully aware that Obama’s health care act was simply a back door to taxing of the poor and an increase in the overall cost of health coverage on most everyone else. This is, of course, excluding Congress and presidents, who are all excluded from the act.
Then there is the fact that this is all just a step to the liberals in Congress working our nation towards the single-payer system that will eventually make the government the financial middleman in charge of all of that money. And remember that this health care act puts the health care of the average American citizen into the hands of the politicians as a campaign bargaining chip for each and every election season.
What went wrong:
Where the challengers of the law messed up was in failing to challenge the health care law in its entirety, instead of challenging parts of it. The main reason the law is unconstitutional was totally missed.
If someone broke into your home, would you stand there arguing with him as to what is okay for him to take and what is not? Of course you wouldn’t. And yet that is what has happened with the health care law. People argued some things in the law instead of the fact that the law is there to begin with and shouldn’t be.
There is no power given to Congress that allows them to take over the privately-owned health insurance industry and turn it into a government-run health care system. The health care law is basically saying that there is no longer any such thing as health insurance. ObamaCare is a health “care” act, not a health “insurance” act. Hence the reason that no one can be turned down. It is not insurance. Insurance insures us in case something happens, not after it happens. We don’t get house insurance after our kitchen burns down, after all.
It is now health care, a government-run entity, in which everyone has to put into the pot. It is the government’s takeover of an industry, the dissolving of it, and the forcing of those who were in that industry to now work for a government-run entity or to find another source of income. It is like this: You own a clothing store. The government says that you can no longer run it as a store; you now must run it as a place where people can come and just get whatever it is that they need to wear within the government’s standards; and everyone who gets their clothing from you must pay a yearly amount to you that does not go over a government-set amount of cost to them. You no longer own a store. You now work for the government in a government-run clothing distribution place. And you are no longer allowed to own and operate a true store again. You are not allowed to make a profit above what the government allows you to have. The government’s claim is that it has a right to regulate what you do for the good of this country, because everyone needs clothes.
Debra J.M. Smith 06-28-12

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Unexpected turn in eligibility case: 'Put it on record!' 'This judge can't get out; if he screws around, he's violating law'

Posted by BH

120618obamaThe attorney in a publicized challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president told WND the Florida case took an unexpected turn in court yesterday, one he says “pulled the rug out” from Obama’s lawyers and should force a quick answer from the judge.
Attorney Larry Klayman told WND he had expected an “uneventful” hearing in the ongoing case, which returned before Judge Terry Lewis yesterday, but instead found a legal tangle that he believes means Lewis will “have to make a decision, have to put it on record.”
Klayman originally filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County.”
As WND reported, however, attorneys representing Obama at the case’s main hearing, which was livestreamed by WND, argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president. They urged Lewis to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and therefore ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.
But Klayman told WND yesterday that Florida law is unique in that it gives the average voter “much greater freedom to challenge eligibility and fraud than most other states.”

FDA Approves Spraying Viruses On Meat Products

Posted by BH

This is another reason to, at the very least, scale back the efforts of the FDA dramatically if not abolish it.  ENJOY YOUR MEALS TODAY ?

Weird Turn To Rangel Primary Vote Count

Posted by BH

Charlie Rangel Official Weird turn to Rangel primary vote count
Did Charles Rangel win his primary race on Tuesday night or not?
Incredibly, it still isn’t clear. A slew of snafus, mysterious missing precincts, and a failure to count some absentee and provisional ballots leaves the issue in doubt.
In an interview, Vazquez, the spokeswoman for the embattled Board of Elections, defended the office’s efforts, saying that it had simply followed the vote counting process as prescribed by city law.
The reason six percent of votes had not yet been tabulated, Vazquez said, is that the police officers tasked with providing an unofficial record of the data from those precincts after securing voting boxes on election night had not done so. Once election workers downloaded voting files from each precinct to reach an official total, Vazquez said, a complete count would be reached.

Issa Puts Details Of Secret Wiretap Applications In Congressional Record

Posted by BH

By Jonathan Strong.
Darrell Issa SC Issa Puts Details of Secret Wiretap Applications in Congressional Record
In the midst of a fiery floor debate over contempt proceedings for Attorney General Eric Holder, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quietly dropped a bombshell letter into the Congressional Record.
The May 24 letter to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the panel, quotes from and describes in detail a secret wiretap application that has become a point of debate in the GOP’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking probe.
The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.
Read more at Roll Call. By Jonathan Strong.


Posted by BH

AFP’s Blistering Ad Bashing The $2 Trillion Obamacare Tax

Posted by BH

President Obama promised that his healthcare law was not a tax increase, but now we know it is actually one of largest tax increases in history. We need to tell Congress to repeal Obamacare and other unnecessary health care regulations already on the books.


Posted by BH

BREAKING: Issa May Have Just Cornered Eric Holder On Fast and Furious Cover-Up

Posted by BH

BREAKING: Issa May Have Just Cornered Eric Holder On Fast and Furious Cover-Up

Media just now reporting on a clever move by Congressman Darrell Issa to enter into the public record a document that appears to contradict the entire Obama administration’s contention it knew little to nothing about the failed and deadly Fast and Furious operation – a SIGNED wiretap application by top DOJ officials no less.  
Mr. Issa contends the wiretap application contradicts Mr. Holder’s claim that nothing in there would have shown gunwalking was going on.
“The affidavit explicitly describes the most controversial tactic of all: abandoning surveillance of known straw purchasers, resulting in the failure to interdict arms,” Mr. Issa said in a letter he placed in the Congressional Record. It appears on pages H4409 through H4411 of Thursday’s official chronicle of its debates.
The information in the wiretap affidavit is sealed and was not supposed to be released in public, but Roll Call reported Friday that Mr. Issa was using constitutional protections for speech and debate in Congress to put the information before the public.
An email seeking comment from the Justice

Obama Contributor, Who Helped Enact Assault-Weapons Ban, Ran ‘Fast and Furious’

Posted by BH

Dennis K. Burke
Former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke (AP Photo)
( – Dennis K. Burke, who as a lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s was a key player behind the enactment of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, and who then went on to become Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff, and a contributor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, and then a member of Obama's transition team focusing on border-enforcement issues, ended up in the Obama administration as the U.S. attorney in Arizona responsible for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.
When Obama nominated Burke to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Burke told the Arizona Capitol Times he believed he understood what the president and his attorney general wanted him to do.
“There’s clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing, and this is an office that is at the center of the issues of border enforcement,” said Burke.
Over the course of several days, left multiple telephone messages with Burke for comment on this story. He did not respond.
Dennis K. Burke has had a long career working as an aide and political appointee to Democratic elected officials. From 1989 to 1994, he was a counsel for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, working in that capacity for several years on an assault-weapons ban, which was finally enacted on Sept. 13, 1994 as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. That act expired on Sept. 13, 2004. (See NYT: Dennis Burke, Sen. DeConcini, Weapons Ban.pdf)
From 1994-95, Burke served in the Clinton Justice Department in the Office of Legislative Affairs, and in 1997-99, he was an assistant U.S. attorney in Arizona.
From 1999 to 2003, Burke was chief deputy and special assistant to Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano.
In 2003, when Napolitano became governor, Burke became her chief of staff. He stayed in that job until the fall of 2008, when he left to help Democratic political campaigns, including then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. (AP Photo)
Federal Election Commission (FEC)records show that on Jan. 9, 2008, while working as Gov. Napolitano’s chief of staff, Burke contributed $2,000 to then-Sen Obama’s presidential primary campaign. Since 1997, according to FEC records, Burke has contributed a total of $16,350 to various Democratic candidates.
After Obama was elected in November 2008, Burke joined his presidential transition team, serving on the Immigration Policy Working Group.
Eight days before Obama’s inauguration, on Jan. 12, 2009--while Burke was working on the transition team--Obama met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Mexican Cultural Institute in Washington, D.C. At that meeting, Obama “pledged” to take action to stop the flow of guns from the United States to Mexico.
Obama also decided to put Burke’s old boss, incoming Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in a leadership role in making the gun-trafficking problem a top priority.
“President-elect Obama expressed support for efforts in the border states in both the United States and Mexico to eradicate drug-related violence and stop the flow of guns and cash,” incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement at the time. “He told President Calderón that he intends to ask the Secretary of Homeland Security to lead an effort to increase information sharing to strengthen those efforts. He pledged to take more effective action from the United States to stem the flow of arms from the United States to Mexico.”
When Napolitano became Homeland Security secretary, Burke moved from the Obama transition team to become her senior adviser. On Feb. 25, 2009, a little more than a month after Obama had made his “pledge” to Calderon, Napolitano testified in the House Homeland Security Committee. She stressed that stopping the flow of guns to Mexico was a top priority of the Obama administration and key focus of her work.
Rahm Emanuel
Former Obama chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green, File)
Responding to a question about violence on the border, Napolitano said the administration was going to work with the Mexican government on the issue. Then she said: “Secondly, it is looking at, government-wide, at what we can do to stop the southbound export of weaponry, particularly assault-type weapons and grenades that are being used in that drug war.”
Napolitano further noted that drug cartels were targeting Mexican government officials and law enforcement officers, and that, given the seriousness of the threat, Obama’s national security adviser, the attorney general, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Customs (of which the Border Patrol is part) would all be working on the issue.
“I've met with the attorney general of Mexico and the ambassador already,” said Napolitano during the February 2009 hearing. “One of the things that I particularly am focused on is southbound traffic in guns, particularly assault weapons, and cash that are being used to funnel and fund these very, very violent cartels.”
The same day Napolitano testified in the Homeland Security Committee, Attorney General Holder addressed the issue of drug-trafficking-related gun violence in northern Mexico. He said he had had conversations about the issue with the Mexican attorney general and that the Obama administration believed that re-instating the assault-weapons ban in the United States--the one Dennis Burke had initially helped push through as Senate aide in 1990s--would help the situation in Mexico.
“Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder said. “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”
Four-and-a-half months later, on July 10, 2009, Obama nominated Burke to be the U.S. attorney in Arizona. The Senate confirmed Burke on Sept. 15 of that year.
It was in July 2010, after his nomination as U.S. attorney, that Burke told theArizona Capitol Times that he had  “been working on homeland security and border enforcement issues” during the transition, and that there had “clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing.”
“What I hope to do, if confirmed by the Senate,” Burke told the paper, “is to ensure that those plans and strategies are being implemented and we’re moving quickly on prosecutions.”
After the nomination, former Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) had high praise for Burke’s work in getting the assault weapons ban through Congress back in the 1990s.
“We ended up getting senators who had never voted for a gun bill, like Lloyd Benson of Texas and Sam Nunn of Georgia and Al D’Amato of New York, who were friends of mine that I worked real hard,” DeConcini told the Arizona Capitol Times.  “But Dennis worked the staff. He was responsive to them and several of the senators mentioned to me what a great staffer you’ve got there, and I said, ‘Boy, you’re telling me.’”
The Arizona Republic has reported that “DeConcini said Burke fostered the measure in concert with a key figure in the white House, policy analyst Rahm Emanuel, who years later would become chief of staff for President Obama. … ‘Dennis was the one who worked with everyone on the Judiciary Committee to line up these members and votes,’ DeConcini said. ‘Dennis had all these pictures of these guns--the Streetsweepers and the AK-47s. And it passed by one vote. A lot of it was not my eloquence on the bill, it was stuff that Dennis had done.’”
Six weeks after Burke was confirmed, on Oct. 26, 2009, Eric Holder named him to the
Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC) of U.S. Attorneys. In his capacity as an adviser to Holder, Burke chaired the AGAC subcommittee on border and immigration law enforcement while Operation Fast and Furious was happening.
The same month that Burke joined Holder’s advisory committee with a specific responsibility to report to Deputy Attorney General David Ogden on border and immigration enforcement, Ogden’s office made a significant change in the federal government’s strategy for dealing with gun-trafficking on the Mexican border.
“This new strategy directed federal law enforcement to shift its focus away from seizing firearms from criminals as soon as possible, and to focus instead on identifying members of trafficking networks,” House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa wrote in a May 3 memo to other members of his committee, summarizing what the committee had learned about Fast and Furious.
“The Office of the Deputy Attorney General shared this strategy with the heads of many Department components, including ATF,” said Issa.
The next month, November 2009, the ATF in Arizona moved forward with the new strategy by creating Operation Fast and Furious.
Eric Holder
Attorney General Eric Holder testifying in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 12, 2012. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
“Members of the ATF Phoenix Field Division, led by Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell, became familiar with this new strategy and used it in creating Fast and Furious,” Issa wrote in his May 3 memo. “In mid-November 2009, just weeks after the strategy was issued, Fast and Furious began. Its objective was to establish a nexus between straw purchasers of firearms in the United States and Mexican drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs) operating on both sides of the United States-Mexico border.”
“Straw purchasers,” Issa explained, “are individuals who are legally entitled to purchase firearms for themselves, but who unlawfully purchase weapons with the intent to transfer them to someone else, in this case DTOs or other criminals.”
Remarkably, under Operation Fast and Furious, the ATF deliberately allowed guns to move south across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of the drug cartels. Weapons were allowed to be sold to straw purchasers with the intent of tracing the guns to the cartels.
“During Fast and Furious, ATF agents used an investigative technique known as ‘gunwalking’--that is, allowing illegally purchased weapons to be transferred to third parties without attempting to disrupt or deter the illegal activity,” Issa wrote in the May 3 memo. “ATF agents abandoned surveillance on known straw purchasers after they illegally purchased weapons that ATF agents knew were destined for Mexican drug cartels.”
The purpose of the operation was to trace the guns recovered from crimes scenes “to their original straw purchaser, in an attempt to establish a connection between that individual and the DTO.”
Brian Terry,  border agent
U.S. Border Agent Brian A. Terry, shot and killed on Dec. 14, 2010, near Rio Rico, Arizona. (AP Photo)
The ATF Phoenix Field Division applied to Justice Department headquarters to become an“Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force” (OCDETF) case. In preparing their application in early January 2009, the ATF in Phoenix wrote a memo explaining the investigative technique of Fast and Furious.
The application for Fast and Furious was approved and, in January 2010, as Issa stated in his memo, it “became a prosecutor-led OCDETF Strike Force case, meaning that ATF would join with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement under the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona.”
In other words, it was under the leadership of Dennis Burke.
“Although ATF was the lead law enforcement agency for Fast and Furious, its agents took direction from prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” Issa says in his May 3 memo. “The lead federal prosecutor for Fast and Furious was Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley, who played an integral role in the day-to-day, tactical management of the case.”
Issa states in his memo that Burke’s U.S. attorney’s office made it more difficult for ATF agents to interdict guns.
“Many ATF agents working on Operation Fast and Furious came to believe that some of the most basic law enforcement techniques used to interdict weapons required the explicit approval of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and specifically from Hurley,” Issa wrote. “On numerous occasions, Hurley and other federal prosecutors withheld this approval, to the mounting frustration of ATF agents. The U.S. Attorney’s Office chose not to use other available investigative tools common in gun trafficking cases, such as civil forfeitures and seizure warrants, during the seminal periods of Fast and Furious.”
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office advised ATF that agents needed to meet unnecessarily strict evidentiary standards in order to speak with suspects, temporarily detain them, or interdict weapons,” Issa said. “ATF’s reliance on this advice from the U.S. Attorney’s Office during Fast and Furious resulted in many lost opportunities to interdict weapons.”
A report on Fast and Furious released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Democrats in January 2012, indicates that on Jan. 5, 2010, officials from the ATF Phoenix office met with Assistant U.S. Attorney Hurley and determined that the gun-trafficking investigation should continue because it wasn't ready for prosecution. The Democrat report quotes a briefing paper prepared by the ATF three days after the meeting--which would be Jan. 8, 2010--that says U.S. Attorney Burke was briefed on the matter and agreed that the investigation should continue.
"Investigative and prosecutions strategies were discussed and a determination was made that there was minimal evidence at this time to support any type of prosecution," said the ATF briefing paper, "therefore, additional firearms purchases should be monitored and additional evidence continued to be gathered. This investigation was briefed to United States Attorney Dennis Burke, who concurs with the assessment of his line prosecutors and fully supports the continuation of this investigation."
(AP Photo)
Eight days after this briefing paper was produced, on Jan. 16, 2010,straw buyers bought three assault-weapon rifles, two of which would figure prominently in the unraveling of the program. They were the weapons that would later be found at the scene of the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
On. Nov. 24, 2010, just a few weeks before Terry was murdered, Burke--who had begun his career in public service working to enact an assault-weapons ban--had an email exchange with another U.S. attorney about an investigation he was working on that involved "straw purchasing of assault weapons."
“What a great investigation. What is the ETI (estimated time of indictment!)” U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan for the Western District of Washington said to Burke in an email.
Burke responded, “Would love to chat. We are about to indict around [REDACTED] clowns for a Gun Trafficking to Mexico operation. It's a T-III investigation that we have been working w/ATF for a long time and IRS is all over some money laundering charges. It’s going to bring a lot of attention to straw purchasing of assault weapons. Some of the weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the Cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby.”
The e-mail exchange, with the subject line “Gun Shows,” did not specifically mention Operation Fast and Furious.
Operation Fast and Furious was halted after Dec. 14, 2010 after two of the guns that a straw buyer had been allowed to purchase during the operation ended up at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Fast and Furious later became the subject of a congressional investigation, and an investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.
President Barack Obama and President Bill Clinton
Former President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
On Dec. 14, the same day of Terry's murdered, Burke sent an emailreplying to an e-mail from Monty Wilkinson, Attorney General Holder's deputy chief of staff. In this email, Burke said his office had a large firearms trafficking case that he wanted to discuss. In a follow up e-mail the next day--Dec. 15, 2010--Burke alerted Wilkinson that Agent Terry had been murdered. Wilkinson responded, “Tragic, I’ve alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”
The exchanges between Burke and Holder's deputy chief of staff at the time of Agent Terry's murder are reported the report published by the committee Democrats.
"Several hours later on December 15, 2010, U.S. Attorney Burke learned that
Agent Terry had been murdered," says the Democratic report. "He alerted Mr. Wilkinson, who replied, 'Tragic,
I’ve alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.'"
"Later that same day, U.S. Attorney Burke learned that two firearms found at Agent Terry’s murder scene had been purchased by a suspect in Operation Fast and Furious," says the Democratic report. "He sent an email to Mr. Wilkinson forwarding this information and wrote: 'The guns found in the desert near the murder [sic] BP officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about—they were AK-47’s purchased at a
Phoenix gun store.' Mr. Wilkinson replied, 'I’ll call tomorrow.'
Despite this email from Wilkinson, Burke told the committee he did not recall actually having such a phone conversation, and the Department of Justice told the committee that Wilksonson does not recall making the call. Also Attorney General Holder himself testified that his deputy chief of staff never told him about the tie between the gun-trafficking investigation and Agent Terry's murder.
"In his interview with Committee staff, U.S. Attorney Burke stated that he did not recall having any subsequent conversation with Mr. Wilkinson that 'included the fact that Fast and Furious guns were found at the scene' of Agent Terry’s murder," the Democrat report said.
"In a November 2011 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Charles Grassley asked Attorney General Holder, 'Did Mr. Wilkinson say anything to you about the connection between Agent Terry’s death and the ATF operation?'"
The Democratic report says: "Attorney General Holder responded, 'No, he did not.” In a January 27, 2011, letter to the Committee, the Department stated that Mr. Wilkinson 'does not recall a follow-up call with Burke or discussing this aspect of the matter with the Attorney
Brian Terry's murder caused an apparent change of plans for the Justice Department.
Darrell Issa
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
“Washington-based Justice Department officials had earlier discussed bringing Attorney General Eric Holder to Phoenix for a triumphant press conference with Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke to herald the conclusion of the Department’s flagship firearms trafficking case,” said a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee memo from May 3, 2012.“In the aftermath of Agent Terry’s death, the task of announcing indictments at a press conference fell to ATF Phoenix Division Special Agent in Charge William Newell and Burke. Holder did not attend.
“At the press conference on January 25, 2011, Newell triumphantly announced the indictment of 20 members of an arms trafficking syndicate that had been supplying weapons to the Sinaloa Cartel, Mexico’s largest and most powerful cartel led by the notorious Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman,” the May 3 memo said.
When Newell was asked if ATF agents purposefully allowed weapons to enter Mexico, he responded, “Hell no.”
Two days after the press conference, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote then-Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson about reports from whistleblowers regarding gunwalking and Agent Terry’s death.
Allegations of gunwalking “are based on categorical falsehoods,” Burke said in a Jan. 31, 2011 e-mail to Jason Weinstein, the deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division.
Days later, on Feb. 4, 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded to Grassley denying that the Justice Department “sanctioned” the sale of guns to people they believed were going to deliver them to Mexican drug cartels.
As the scandal began to build by that summer, Brian Terry’s mother--Josephine Terry--testified at the hearing of the House Oversight Committee. The mother of the slain Border Patrol agent told the committee that Burke informed the family of the agent’s death, but did not provide details about Operation Fast and Furious.
“He was just trying to explain to us exactly what happened and--roundabout way--we really never got anything out of the visit that he did have,” Josephine Terry told the committee on June 15, 2011. Asked how she found out about Fast and Furious, she responded, “Most of it I heard is from the media. We haven't really got anything direct--phone calls or nothing from anybody.”
At the same hearing, Weich, who wrote the Feb. 4, 2011 letter to Grassley, told the committee, “Everything that we say is true to the best of our knowledge at the time we say it. As more facts come out, obviously our understanding of the situation is enhanced.”
On June 29, 2011, a reporter asked the Oversight Committee about leaked documents related to whistleblower ATF Agent John Dodson.
Fast and Furious
Attorney General Eric holder speaks to reporters following his meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
“Congressional investigators later determined that the individual who was behind the leaked documents was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Dennis Burke--the Obama Administration political appointee who led the office in charge of Operation Fast and Furious,” said Issa's May 3 Oversight Committee memo.
“Burke later testified that the reporter contacted him, and that he believed the reporter had already seen the documents or had them read to him from someone else in the Department of Justice. Instead of e-mailing the documents to the reporter in Washington, Burke, who was in Arizona at the time, e-mailed them to a friend of his in Washington, who then printed out the documents and then delivered them to the reporter personally,” Issa said in his May 3 memo. “These efforts successfully kept Burke’s fingerprints off of the leak until he publicly admitted his role more than two months after his August 2011 resignation as blame for Fast and Furious spread.”
On Aug. 18, 2011, House Oversight Committee staff interviewed Burke. They asked him: “To your knowledge as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, did the highest levels of the Department of Justice authorize [the] non-interdiction of weapons, cutting off of surveillance, as an investigative tactic in Operation Fast and Furious?”
Burke responded, “I have no knowledge of that.”
The committee also asked, “Did you ever authorize those tactics?”
Burke answered, “No.”
During that same Aug. 18, 2011 interview, the committee staff asked Burke: “And did anyone ever—from the Department of Justice, Main Justice I will call it--ever tell you that you were authorized to allow weapons to cross the border when you otherwise would have had a legal authority to seize or interdict them because they were a suspected straw purchase or it was suspected that they were being trafficked in a firearms scheme?”
Burke answered, “I have no recollection of ever being told that.”
Twelve days after this interview, on Aug. 30, 2011, Burke resigned as U.S. attorney. Burke’s assistant U.S. attorney, Emory Hurley, the lead prosecutor in Operation Fast and Furious, also resigned, as did ATF Director Melson.
During an Oct. 19, 2011 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley asked Burke's old boss, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, “Have you had any communications with Mr. Burke about Operation Fast and Furious?”
Napolitano said, “No.”
Grassley followed up: “So you then obviously didn’t talk to him, anything about Agent Terry's death?”
Napolitano said that after Agent Terry was killed, “I went to Arizona a few days thereafter to meet with the FBI agents and the assistant U.S. attorneys who were actually going to look for the shooters. At that time, nobody had done the forensics on the guns and ‘Fast and Furious’ was not mentioned. But I wanted to be sure that those responsible for his death were brought to justice, and that every DOJ resource was being brought to bear on that topic. So I did have conversations in--it would have been December of  '09 [actually 2010]--about the murder of Agent Terry. But at that point in time, there, nobody knew about Fast and Furious.”
Dennis K. Burke, former U.S. Attorney for Arizona in charge of Operation Fast and Furious.
It was not until Dec. 2, 2011 that the Justice Department withdrew its Feb. 4, 2011 letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to Grassley in which DOJ had denied that gun-walking had occurred.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has subpoenaed about 100,000 documents from the Department of Justice. The department has produced about 7,600 documents. The committee believes that is insufficient.
Last week, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted on a resolution of contempt against Attorney General Holder for withholding documents that the committee has subpoenaed.
Just hours before the vote, on June 20, Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified the committee that President Barack Obama was invoking executive privilege to deny the committee access to the documents.
On June 28, the full House of Representatives voted, 256-67, with 17 Democrats joining the Republican majority, to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to release the documents requested by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
On ABC’s This Week, on June 24, reporter Jake Tapper asked House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Issa: “You really think that there's a possibility that they were sending guns across the border not because they were trying to get people in the Mexican drug cartels, not because they were trying to figure out drug--I mean, gun trafficking--but because they were trying to push gun control?”
Rep. Issa said: “Two things quickly. First of all, this was so flawed that you can't believe they expected to actually get criminal prosecutions as a result of it. So the level of flaw--flaw--flaw, if that's a word, here is huge.”
“But here's the real answer as to gun control," said Issa. "We have e-mails from people involved in this that are talking about using what they're finding here to support the--basically assault weapons ban or greater reporting.”
“So chicken or egg?" asked Issa. "We don't know which came first; we probably never will. We do know that during this--this Fast and Furious operation, there were e-mails in which they're saying we can use this as part of additional reporting or things like assault weapons ban. So the people involved saw the benefit of what--what they were gathering. Whether or not that was their original purpose, we probably will never know.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...