Eric Holder: The Dark Cloud

Over the past few months as the Republican race has heated up and candidates came and went, there has been an uneasiness floating around in the dark recesses of my mind. For a while, I thought much of the disquiet had to do with the fact that we Republicans and Conservatives can’t seem to settle on a candidate. While we kept chasing the flavor of the month (Perry, Cain, Bachmann, et al), the Obama White had to certainly feel both comfort and concern.

Comfort: If I were Obama I’d look at the seeming dysfunction within the Republican Party and rub my hands with mild glee. It has to feel somewhat encouraging to Obama and his crew that we can’t seem to settle on a candidate.

Concern: Somewhere within the apparatus that is the Obama White House there has to be one individual with a level head that looks at the back and forth going on in the Republican nomination process and says to him/herself “This might not be all wine and roses.” Unlike what the mainstream press did with Obama back in 2007/8, our candidate is going to be thoroughly vetted by the same press that swooned over a certain first-dude born in Hawaii. Once the nomination process has run its course and focus switches to denying Obama another four years, there will be little “surprise” news that could derail the Republican nominee, allowing whoever it is to fire away on all cylinders.

Getting back to the main point here, I soon decided that the dark cloud that I could see on the horizon was not the nomination process and the rumble and tumble going on there. What brought clarity for me was the recent spat of suits brought by the Eric Holder Justice Department against cities, towns, and states that were implementing some form of voter identification. Recently Mr. Holder stated that these voter ID laws are taking America back to the days of Jim Crow and “the same disparities, divisions and problems” that affected America prior to the 1965 passage of the Voter Rights Act.

Keep in mind that Obama recently hailed from Chicago and that region has a notorious reputation for bending, to the point of breaking, election laws. After all the term “vote early and vote often” has its roots in Chicago. Any laws on the books that could suppress repeat voting and voting by non-existent and dead persons and is not the “Chicago way.” Based on many recent polls that are not very favorable for his re-election, Obama is going to need all the help he can get in 2012 if he wants to continue to occupy the White House and send Michelle on lavish vacation to the far-flung reaches of the global.

Holder has already proven that he will do anything to maintain his place at the Justice department, including “not remembering” any memos, e-mails, talk, scuttlebutt, rumors, and just plain old news on “Fast and Furious.” I have no doubts that Holder will do everything in his power to redact any laws that will prevent dead people and Mickey Mouse from voting several times over.

Obama has also proven over again that his feeling towards the rule of law and the Constitution are nothing more than lines in a speech.

If Obama wins re-election at the end of this year, I would not be surprised that it happens with many shenanigans at various locations around the nation. Remember, all he has to do is carry certain districts in certain key states to win the Electoral College totals. I think we can safely assume big states like California and New York are already in the bag. Take those and he has a quarter of the electors needed for victory. But in a few others states where the vote could be closer like Illinois, Pennsylvania, and even Texas all that has to happen is districts near the larger cities like Pittsburg, Houston, and Chicago vote early and often in favor of Obama and the tide could change. This might actually be a first. A presidential nominee who is not above 45% approval gaining re-election.

So the dark cloud remains on the horizon and feels menacing.

Any means necessary.

BTW: To all of those who'll call me a racist for putting dark cloud and Eirc Holder in the same sentence I'll say it now just so I don't have to in the comments section. Shut the heck up!

Labor Goes After Seattle PD

Over the past two years or so, the Seattle Police Department has been mired in controversy over several incidents of excessive use of force. The most noteworthy example was when a SPD member shot and killed a woodcarver in downtown when the woodcarver made a threatening move towards the police officer who shot him. There have been other incidents recent which finally caught the attention of the US Justice Department.  After a top-down review, the report was particularly harsh on the SPD, especially the senior-level leadership.

Now a influential labor group, the King County Labor Council, has called for Mayor Mike McGinn to replace or shuffle the SPD leadership.

The King County Labor Council urged McGinn to make sweeping changes to the command structure with SPD, calling the leadership within the department “deficient” and saying there’s a lack of oversight from the top down. (Source: Seattle PI)

The council might not be reaching far enough in my opinion. They are calling for changes within the department, which I think might be a good idea, but I think they need to look at McGinn. While it is true that McGinn is not the Chief of Police for the SPD, John Diaz, who is the chief, works for McGinn. Diaz does admit the DOJ report has merit and changes will be made.

Executive secretary David Frieboth writes that “this situation is particularly troubling, as it tars good cops with the sins of the few.”

He also writes that there appears to be a “pattern of excessive force that clearly indicates deficient leadership,” and “this absence of accountability reveals a major defect in leadership at the Seattle Police Department.” (Source: Seattle PI)

I do have to wonder why a labor group would stick their nose into an issue that really is kind of out of their area of expertise. While everyone does have an opinion about the SPD situation, a labor group is probably reaching outside their neighborhood by getting involved with this matter.

Is Fast And Furious Just the Tip?

Several links that discuss possible links between Eric Holder and the Oklahoma City bomber, Tim McVeigh. As I read through the links and the articles, I was troubled for two reasons.

First, while this might paint me as naïve, I do have troubles trying to wrap my hands around a conspiracy this large. Is it really possible that people within our own government would be so calloused and evil as to assist someone with plans to kill US citizen for purely political gain? As more information comes out about Fast and Furious (F&F), it does seem more and more likely that the people mentioned in the articles would use any means necessary to achieve their ultimate goals. Maybe that is why so many people on the left actually believe that Bush and Cheney lead us to war just for the oil profits. Would Eric Holder really be so uncaring of human life that he would be willing to sacrifice his fellow citizen just to inflame the narrative against the extreme right?

Secondly, I am troubled by the lack of supporting evidence. The articles do provide a lot of information on which they base their suppositions. But several key documents have been pulled and are no longer available for review. The authors of the linked post do make it clear that some of the documents they used as background are no longer readily available, but they do stand behind their story. Of course, in the initial stages of the F&F case, much of what was said was mostly tying together some very loose information, easily denied or dismissed. But as time has gone along and more evidence is released, it has become quite apparent that F&F is more than just guessing and crazy-talk by a bunch of right-wingers in a cabin in Montana. In the case of F&F, there was smoke, and it led to fire. Could we be looking at the same thing here? Time will tell.

Obama Care to SCOTUS

In a move that was probably not unexpected in some quarters, the Department of Justice has asked the Supreme Court to review the Affordable Health Care law (Obama Care).

President Obama is taking a sizable risk asking the SCOTUS, through the DOJ, to review the decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal. In that decision the 11th ruled the “must purchase insurance” individual mandate is unconstitutional. Obama’s risk comes because he is asking the SCOTUS to rule on his one and only piece of legislation of any significance. If the SCOTUS rules that the mandate is constitutional, then Obama can rack that up a big win and campaign on how he is allowing even more people to suckle at the teat of government. If he loses, he runs the risk of his one landmark piece of legislation being rendered moot. This would more than likely end any serious run for a second term (we can only hope).

Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Senior Advisor the President Obama, posted this on her White House blog:

Just as challenges to the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act all failed, challenges to health reform are failing as well. The Administration has already prevailed in cases heard in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the FourthCircuit Court of Appeals. (Source: White House)

Well, why don’t we take a very quick gander at these rulings they feel are precedent. First of all, none of these laws and subsequent judgments were laws that dictated inactivity. In essence, the individual mandate requires people to participate, i.e. purchase insurance. This is the first time in our history anyone has actually required someone purchase something. While the White House points out the Social Security Act passed all legal challenges, remember that it passed through a SCOTUS that was packed with FDR appointees. You think those judges were going to go against a president that appointed them? In the case of the Civil Rights and Voting Acts, these did not require people to move from inaction to action. It required a change in action (the right to vote in federal elections and the stopping legalized discrimination). Totally different ball game.

The bottom line here is that the individual mandate requires people to purchase something. It is no different if the federal government said we had to buy a GM car. The Commerce Clause of the 10th Amendment prevents the government from dictating our purchase choices.

Obama and Holder Going After S&P

The first time I read the headline in this linked story, I actually laughed. Eric Holder and the Justice Department are going after Standard and Poor, looking into possible misconduct related to mortgage securities. Raise your hand if you think this is in retaliation for S&P down-grading the US for AAA to AA+.

It is laughable that this administration would go after a group that rated mortgage securities, when Obama, as a Senator, backed continuing down the path of destruction when then-President Bush wanted to reign in Fannie and Freddie. It was democrats, led by Clinton, while he was president, and continually backed by Barney Frank, who should be the ones under investigation. This group of liberal politicians wanted everyone to be able to purchase a house. These risky mortgages were backed by Fannie and Freddie under the direction of Frank’s boyfriend. When banks and mortgage companies wanted to bring back and little sanity to the lending process, they were threatened by progressives and liberals with charges of racism.

Illegal Immigration End Game?

I have blogged several times about the illegal immigration issues in our country and how the Obama administration is going to try and circumvent the immigration laws (select “illegal immigration” from the Labels column on the left of this site).

It sure looks like the end game is near. Michelle Malkin has the full story. A memo recently released is basically telling ICE agents to go through a series of qualifiers to determine whether an illegal immigrant should be processed for deportation. After reading through the list of qualifiers, it looks like unless the illegal immigrant commits a significant crime, they get to stay. I thought breaking or immigration laws would be considered a significant crime. Not according to the Obama administration.

2012 cannot come soon enough.

Obama Leaves Critical IG Positions Unfilled

If one were at all cynical one might ask why the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor don’t have Inspectors General. In President Obama’s continued war on government transparency, he has left 12 IG positions open. The two IG positions mentioned above just happen to be at agencies that are struggling with a perception of possible corruption at the worst and mismanagement if one were to be charitable.

Both agencies could be considered out of control. The Justice Department has given the appearance of deciding which cases to pursue based on the racial makeup of the parties and they are up to their necks in dodo over the Project Gunrunner fiasco. The Department of Labor is having its own issues such as issuing directives that give unions more freedoms and hinder businesses.

Adding more to the pile, prosecutions are also down over the past few years.

Another Misstep By the Obama Administration

If you are up to it, you might want to cruise through these links (h/t: Daily Caller)

What we know about Project Gunrunner

Obama snubs Issa on subpoena for ATF documents

Cummings: Project Gunrunner subpoena could compromise criminal investigations

It looks like the Obama Administration and the Justice Department might have really screwed the pooch here. Guns sold under this project have made their way to Mexico and the drug cartels and have been used in a murder of an American citizen.

High Gas Prices Has Obama Attention (Update)

Energy costs “would necessarily skyrocket” said a one-time candidate and now President. In the two very long years that Obama has been President, one thing is certainly true, energy prices have skyrocketed. Since he became President, the cost of gasoline has doubled at the pumps. This increase in gas prices is costing him some political capital as his overall approval rate continues a downward direction. Anyone remember this little bit? I wonder if Ms Joseph still thinks Obama is going to take care of her, especially since the doubling of gas prices since he was elected.

Well, it seems that Obama is finally a little worried the cost of gas is going to have an impact on his continued residency at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  He has formed an “Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group” who will look into the any possible price gouging.  This group will be under the banner of the Justice Department and Eric Holder.

DOJ to Investigate the Seattle PD

This is not going to go well.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) is going to look into the Seattle PD’s “use of force practices, including treatment of minorities”.

Don’t misunderstand me; if a police department has a history of excessive force, especially against minorities, then investigations need to happen. But having the politically charged DOJ look into issues involving minorities is not going to go well. The racially charged issues at the DOJ are well documented here and here.

According to the article in the Seattle Times, the Seattle PD just might have some problems that need looking into.  Here is some recent history:

DHS Demotes Whistleblower

Could this be considered doubling up on corruption? Political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are interfering with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records, sometimes blocking records that under normal circumstances wouldn’t be considered as classified or close-hold.  And now the individual who blew the whistle is being demoted. Republican House member Darrell Issa, who is Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is saying the demotion appears to be “an act of retaliation”

Mr Issa accused the administration of improperly demoting Catherine Papoi, the former deputy unit chief in charge of the Freedom of Information Act. His charge raised the stakes in the broad congressional inquiry into President Obama’s promises to improve government transparency.

Raise your hand if you are surprised that the President, who is from the Chicago political machine, would condone this sort of activity (withholding information and retaliation).

DOJ Once Again Sticking Their Nose Where it Doesn't Belong

More indication that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has their head up their butts. The Obama Administration has made bullying a priority, telling schools they need to be more proactive with regarding to bullying on school grounds.

The DOJ is going to use the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a way to enforce the clamp down on bullying.  At the DOJ web site:

The Civil Right Division and the entire Justice Department are committed to ending bullying and harassment in schools... [snip] …protect students from discrimination and harassment at school because of their race, national origin, disability, religion, and sex, including harassment based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes. (Source: Washington Times)

Obama and Gun Rights, the Evidence is not so Good

On Glenn Beck tonight he discussed the Obama Administrations plans for gun control over the next couple of years. During the discussion he put up a quote regarding how to best get more gun control. The quote discussed better background checks and mental health issues.  The one thing that caught my eye was the statement (paraphrased) efforts should also focus on those who have no need to legitimately own a gun. That caused me to sit back for a moment. Once you eliminate the felons and criminals, and the mentally ill folks from owning and possessing guns what else is there? Who are the folks who have no need to legitimately own a gun?

Well, based on how he and some of his cabinet members and other advisors feel about guns and their desire to either highly control them or eliminate them altogether I fear those who have no legitimate need for guns would be the rest of us, at least in their minds. If they get the opportunity to change the laws, we will the ones who don't have a legitimate reason to own a gun. Obama has, in the past, stated he supports bans on right to carry for everyone except police officers.

DOMA Unconstitutional?

President Obama believes the Defense of Marriage act in unconstitutional and orders his Justice Department not to defend the law.

I never actually thought I would see the end of the American greatness in my lifetime. But here I am, middle age, witness to the downfall of probably the greatest country the world has ever seen. Hard to believe that we existed for about 250 years, with about 150 of that in true greatness.