In 2008, while Republican crowds were chanting “USA, USA, USA,” during Sarah Palin’s speeches, Democrats were chanting “hope and change” as Barack Obama talked about “fundamentally transforming America.” And to their shame, many of the people chanting “hope and change” actually believed Obama could deliver. Of course, by the end of 2009 the only significant change, economically speaking, was that Obama had already eclipsed George W. Bush’s $700 billion federal deficit. (The difference there was that it took Bush 8 years to reach $700 billion, but it only took Obama a few months to surpass $1.5 trillion.)

Then came 2010, and “Recovery Summer.” June, July, and August of that year were going to be the months where all of Obama’s deficit spending started to pay off. By spending money we didn’t have for projects we didn’t need—like the 10,000 plus road repair projects around the country that were funded by untold millions in Obama’s stimulus package—we were going to dominate the world economically once more. Of course, it didn’t happen. And instead of putting the millions of Americans to work that David Axelrod claimed it would, the stimulus package coincided with the loss of 3 million more jobs.

(For those of you keeping score, Obama has since pushed a new stimulus act and, I suppose, probably has a “recovery summer 2.0” banner he’ll break out for speeches should the new act pass.)

Throughout these things, unemployment in America has risen from the high 7% range in early 2009 to the 10% range, and currently rests at 8.5% (soon to be 9% according to Gallup).

(more…)

Under Barack Obama, the number of people not paying federal income taxes in America has officially hit 49.5%. That means almost half of America, or 151.7 million Americans, are enjoying privileges or living off benefits the other 50.5% pay for. What kind of benefits am I talking about? Almost every kind you think about.

For example, the number of Americans on food stamps has risen to a record 45.8 million. The previous record was 31 million in 2009. Likewise, the number of people using free government-provided cell phones has shot up exponentially. In 2008, the free cell phone program cost tax-payers $772 million, and in 2011 it cost $1.6 billion. (Those free cell phones are expensive.)  Free school breakfasts and lunches have been complimented with free school dinners under Obama, and programs to provide meals to kids during the summer have even been added. Moreover, jobless benefits have been extended to 99 weeks under Obama, and thanks to his new HHS mandate, contraception will now be free for nearly everyone as well.

And although some of the programs might be temporarily justifiable for families that are literally down and out—truly at the point of no return—99 weeks of anything can only create dependence. This is proven by the fact that some of the long-term unemployed are now filing claims for mental illness and other disabilities with Social Security once their 99 weeks are over. (These mental health claims unlock even more free government monies for them.)

No wonder Obama is being called the “food stamp president.”

(more…)

The screaming crowds and near Elvis-fanfare that greeted Obama as he campaigned across America in 2008, began dying down in late 2009 and have been reduced to nothing more than a whimper in 2012. He is no longer the juggernaut on an upward trajectory: rather, he’s the man who promised hope and change but delivered Fast and Furious. He’s the propagandist for government sponsored green energy programs that are going belly-up at a record pace, and the author of economic policies that have kept unemployment above 8% since February 2009. He so badly wants to hear Farrakhan use the word “messiah” when referencing him again, but the Nation of Islam leader who said he heard the messiah speak when Obama spoke in 2008 has since called Obama “a murderer.”

Gas prices are up over 80% on Obama’s watch, yet his approach to gasoline remains unchanged. Which means we continue to buy our gasoline from many of the same countries that can’t wait to see a nuclear weapon detonated in an American city. So oil is over $100 a barrel, and parts of our country are already paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, while Obama continues to ignore the misery such prices are sure to bring to the middle-class families he claims to be looking out for.

In the midst of this, we’ve been shamed on the battlefield, where Obama pulled our soldiers out as a result of his election year promises to the 21st century counter culture. There were no stated qualifications for victory, only the promise that on such-and-such a date our troops would be coming home. And now that the majority of them are home, Obama’s cutting the size of the standing army and suggesting an 80% reduction in our nuclear arms arsenal.(?) Perhaps Rush Limbaugh described it best when he called it “unilateral disarmament.” It sounds like national suicide to me.

(more…)

Yesterday, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing “to assess the impact of the healthcare mandate rule on freedom of religion,” and see whether the executive branch of government had overreached its constitutional authority. Or to put it as Rush Limbaugh did: “[The hearing] was about whether the regime has the authority to mandate that anybody provide contraception to their employees, either free or for charge.”

The witnesses invited to testify included various members of the clergy as well as Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. And although these parameters were clearly set out before hand—or perhaps because these parameters were set out before hand—Democrats tried to turn the hearing into a circus. The last thing they wanted was for attention to be drawn to the blatant disregard Obama’s big government has for freedom (and the constitution).

Thus, once the hearing was underway, Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) asked House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa (R-CA) if “a minority female could testify [about contraception] at the hearing” just so Issa would say “no” and the Democrats could grandstand. And sure enough, Issa said “no”—because the hearing wasn’t about contraception—and sure enough, the Democrats didn’t pass up their chance to grandstand.  Thereafter, Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), along with Congressman Cummings, walked out of the hearing.

(more…)

To date, in the Fast and Furious investigation, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his fellow Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have done yeoman’s work in trying to get to the bottom of the operation that placed approximately 2,500 weapons in the hands of criminals. And Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ), also member of Oversight Committee, has begun pushing for a vote of “no confidence” in Attorney General Eric Holder (which has yet to reach the House floor).

Of course Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has been right there in the fight as well, and cannot be overlooked. But as the investigation has unfolded throughout the last year, many have asked: “Where is Speaker John Boehner on this?”  Today, during a press conference held by the Speaker, we found out.

Boehner was asked: “Will you support the 100-plus members [of Congress] who have called for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign and bring…Rep. Gosar’s resolution of no confidence to the floor?”

To this the Speaker replied:

Chairman Issa and the members of [the House Oversight] Committee, have done a very good job of investigating this abuse of government power. I continue to support their efforts, and believe that this Justice Department must be held accountable.

(more…)

As the three viable GOP candidates fight for the Republican nomination, one thing is certain: the goal of each is to lay claim to the title of “conservative.” For as far as grassroots voters are concerned, the search is not on for a “fiscal conservative” or a “social conservative,” but for one individual who embodies true conservatism, both fiscally and socially. And that’s why an endorsement right now by the right person—Gov. Christie is not the right person—means so much. (Of course it has to be supported by the candidate’s own conservative past.) But it’s also why criticism from the right person is so damning: especially if that person carries the kind of clout Gov. Sarah Palin carries with the Tea Party.

From the moment Palin opted not to run for president, many believed the role she’d play in the upcoming 2012 presidential election would be that of kingmaker: that the GOP candidate whom she supported would be not only be the Republican nominee, but also the next President of the United States. However, right now Mitt Romney is finding out how crucial a role she can play in simply questioning the conservative credentials of one of the remaining GOP contenders.

In an appearance on Fox News Sunday over the past weekend, when Palin was asked why Romney seems to get so close to sealing the deal, only to lose to a candidate who appears more conservative, Palin said:

I am not convinced [that he’s conservative] and I don’t think that the majority of GOP and independent voters are convinced. And that is why you don’t see Romney get over the hump. He’s still in the 30 percentile mark when it comes to approval and primary wins and caucus wins. He still hasn’t risen above that yet because we are not convinced.

Palin also pointed to the fact that Romney’s past is a “moderate past,” and “in some cases, a liberal past.”  And between his former pro-abortion stances, his current man-made global warming views, and his history of supporting the assault weapons ban, Palin’s statements appear unquestionable.

(more…)

When President Obama put the kibosh on the Keystone Pipeline, environmentalist Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said, “The pipeline was rejected for all the right reasons. President Obama put the health and safety of the American people and our air, lands and water—our national interest—above the interests of the oil industry.” That was false when she said it, for Obama hadn’t really put our air, land, or water on a pedestal. Rather, he simply cowed down to environmental activists (like Beinecke) who wanted him to do so in a bid to appeal once more to the far left in his party, and to subsequently lock in more votes for November 2012. In so doing, he rejected a pipeline that not only would have created thousands of jobs, but would have brought an untold amount of crude to the Gulf of Mexico for America’s refiners to use to make gasoline and other fuels.

And as the fruit of this asinine decision is born out at the gas pump, where gas is already over $3.50 a gallon and headed to $5 by summer’s end, every would-be GOP Presidential candidate should be reminding voters: “This is Obama’s hope and change—$5 a gallon gas must have been what he had in mind when said he was going to ‘fundamentally change America.’”

Let’s face it folks, the gas prices are a misery index in and of themselves. And Obama knows it, so he’s trying to spin high gas prices as proof the economy is recovering (as if high gas prices means our economy has corrected itself). If that’s true, maybe the high healthcare prices Obama used to justify the need for Obamacare were really just proof that our healthcare system was already righting its own ship?

The bottom line: Obama is an anti-capitalist and an archetypical leftist.

(more…)

On February 14th I received an email from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) office, containing a copy of a letter the Congressman just sent to Attorney General Eric Holder. In it, Issa points out Holder’s “lack of good faith,” in not complying with document requests heretofore, and to the fact that the DOJ as a whole appears “more concerned with protecting its image through spin control than actually cooperating with Congress.”

Wrote Issa:

The Justice Department’s request for additional time has, unfortunately, not been followed by efforts to bridge the significant differences between its legal obligation to Congress and the reality of its stonewalling. The [House Oversight and Government Reform Committee] is determined to know what happened in Operation Fast and Furious and how the Justice Department responded when it was publicly confronted with evidence of reckless conduct after Agent Terry’s death. If the Justice Department cannot commit to providing, at a minimum, a detailed description of documents it is withholding, and the legal basis for doing so, then the committee has no other option than to move forward with the contempt process against Attorney General Holder.

In addition, the letter sets forth central questions that have to be answers, among which are:

1. Exactly how and when did senior Department officials learn the truth of what happened?

2. Did Department officials retaliate against whistleblowers?

3. Why did Department officials decide to move forward with prosecuting old cases involving highly objectionable tactics when line prosecutors had refused to do so?

4. Why did senior Department officials fail to see the clear connection between Fast and Furious and prior flawed operations they have admitted they knew about?

5. When did the Department first learn about Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer’s February 2011 suggestion of gunwalking, and why did the Department wait so long before telling Congress about it?

6. A year later, will the responsible senior Department officials be held accountable?

The letter also contains a specific line of questions about Patrick Cunningham, Chief of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, who pled the 5th when subpoenaed by Issa. Apparently, Cunningham did his own “comprehensive review” of Fast and Furious in April 2011, and Issa wants to know what he found out.

(more…)

At CPAC over the weekend, Pima County Sheriff Paul Babeu (AZ), also a Republican congressional candidate for the upcoming 2012 election, was asked about Attorney General Eric Holder and Fast and Furious.

His answers were to the point:

I believe…and many sheriffs in Arizona believe that, he…perjured himself. His story has changed. After there was evidence produced that he did know — he was given briefings, he was given emails — he then started to walk back his statements to say that, “well, I misunderstood the question.”

This is a reference to Holder’s original May 3rd testimony wherein he told Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) that he only learned about Fast and Furious “a few weeks ago,” i.e., sometime in April. But as facts continued to emerge, facts like President Obama’s braggadocios snippet about talking to Holder about Fast and Furious in March, Holder back peddled on his timeline, saying he’d misunderstood Issa’s question, and that he’d actually learned of Fast and Furious in late January / early February. (And since the new timeline was introduced, in congressional testimony Holder has admitted that “in early March [he] ordered that a directive be sent to law enforcement agents and prosecutors prohibiting [gun walking].”)

Sure makes the excuse, “Well, I misunderstood the question,” seem a bit weak doesn’t it?

That’s certainly Sheriff Babeu’s opinion:

(more…)

For nearly a year now, House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa (R=CA) and Attorney General Eric Holder have locked horns over Operation Fast and Furious.  Throughout this time we have seen heated exchanges between the two during Congressional hearings, watched the DOJ’s narrative change more than once, and wondered why Holder has thus far been allowed to dictate the speed at which the committee can investigate him.

As of late, when Holder dug in and simply refused to the turn over the documents the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed, the contest between he and Issa turned into nothing less than a battle of wills. And Issa upped the ante when he drew a line in the sand and gave Holder until 5 pm on February 9^th to comply with the subpoenas or face charges of contempt of congress.

And so they squared off, and for any of you who wondered which man would blink first the answer has been revealed—Issa blinked, and gave Holder & Co. a time extension for turning over the documents.

(more…)

Have you ever watched the Rev. Al Sharpton’s television show on MSNBC and wondered what you’d get if you combined his ignorance of American history with James Carville’s inability to quit speaking? If so, you’ve probably concluded, as I have, that you’d get someone who sounds a lot like Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas. (Yes, the same Congresswoman Lee who, while visiting NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratories in 2005, infamously asked whether the Mars Pathfinder had taken a photograph of the flag Neil Armstrong planted on Mars in 1969.)

And as I listened to Lee speak recently, February 8th, on Ed Schultz’s radio show, it dawned on me anew that responsibility for many of our nation’s current woes can be directly traced to the fact the we’ve placed congressional members and senators in power who know little to nothing about recent American history, much less events surrounding our nation’s founding.

For example, when Schultz asked Lee why anyone would think Congressional Republicans wanted to better the economy when their chief focus appears to be defeating the president, Lee concurred, in a round-about way, then said:

As I have scanned the annals of history, during the tenure of many presidents, obviously the recent presidents of JFK and Lyndon Baines Johnson, of Richard Nixon who was impeached, and subsequently Ford and Carter. I cannot find in the statement of a message of a minority leader, majority leader, or speaker, whose message has been defeat the commander-in-chief.

Wow. The “recent presidents” Lee referenced were JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. JFK died in 1963 and Carter left office in January of 1981. In other words, “recent” to Lee is somewhere between 31-to-49 years ago? Moreover, Lee said Nixon was impeached. Seriously folks, Nixon made history by becoming the first president in U.S. history to resign the office, and of course he resigned before charges of impeachment were brought against him.

(more…)

While Attorney General Eric Holder continues to “stonewall,” as Congressman Issa (R-CA) describes it, and make excuses concerning Operation Fast and Furious, the Mexican Government is making arrests.  According to the LA Times, over the weekend Mexican authorities arrested Jose Antonia Torres Marrufo, “a reputed enforcer for the country’s most powerful drug cartel — a man also alleged to have amassed weapons from the U.S. government’s failed Fast and Furious gun-smuggling operation.” (Italics mine)

Torres  “was in charge of operations in the border state of Chihuahua,” which includes the crime-ridden city of Juarez: a city that is just across the border from El Paso, TX, and one to which Fast and Furious weapons were believed to have been transported. Moreover, Torres, “[who] was wanted in connection with numerous crimes including murder, extortion, kidnapping and the sale and distribution of drugs,” had “two assault rifles and two  [semi-automatic] pistols” with him.

I can’t help but wonder, “Where did Torres get the rifles and the pistols?” Let’s see, he was “alleged to have amassed weapons” via Fast and Furious and he admits to taking over “armed operations for the organization in Chihuahua during the last two to three years.” Hmmm…it doesn’t seem like it should be difficult to figure this one out.

(more…)

That Rick Santorum won big last night is a fact that cannot be denied. Voters in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado chose him, at times by a wide margin, over every other GOP primary candidate.  Clearly now, Santorum has gained momentum that exceeds even that which he garnered with his earlier victory in the Iowa caucuses. Another fact from last night that cannot be denied is that Mitt Romney lost, and he lost big. After riding the mantra of “electability,” that at times seemed to approach inevitability, the man who gave us Romneycare went down in flames in flyover country. And while his campaign and the Republican establishment will surely do all they can to make the losses look less important than they were, it’s axiomatic that a man who can’t win in flyover country in a man who can’t be the GOP candidate.

Now, I don’t have a crystal ball, so I’m not saying that Romney won’t pick up a win in flyover country at some point. But I am saying that last night, Colorado, one the states that should have been a shoe-in for him based on his numbers in 2008 and his religious affiliation, went to a more socially conservative candidate. (Even the democraticunderground.com noticed that Romney’s numbers in the most conservative of counties were down from 70% in 2008 to less than 50% last night.)

In explaining how last night happened the way it did, I go back to the exchanges between Santorum and Romney during the South Carolina debate earlier this year. No one, to that point, had stood toe to toe with Romney and forced listeners to truly consider the similarities between Romneycare and Obamacare. But Santorum did. And when Romney contended that Romneycare was working pretty well for the citizens of Massachusetts and that he was pretty proud of what they’d done there,  Santorum replied: “What Gov. Romney just said is that government-run, top-down medicine is working pretty well in Massachusetts and he supports it. Now, think about what that means.”

People are thinking about it, and all the candidates have to remember that Obamacare will never be popular in flyover country because it is a freedom-robbing mechanism.

(more…)

On Thursday, February 2nd, President Obama attended a National Prayer Breakfast for one of the few times during his presidency. And as he stood before those gathered there, he said “we can all benefit from turning to our Creator” and “avoiding phony religiosity.” Not only that, but he added that our economy can benefit from higher taxes on the wealthy, and then intimated that no one supports higher taxes like Jesus supports higher taxes.

Therefore, as Obama pushed “spread the wealth 2.0,” he justified his latest attempts at financial redistribution by saying “it…coincides with Jesus’ teaching that ‘for unto whom much given, much shall be required.’” He even suggested that the idea of higher taxes on the wealthy was in line with the Golden Rule when he said, “I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to love thy neighbor as thyself.” The president didn’t explain how using confiscatory taxes to take money from one’s neighbor can be equated with loving one’s neighbor, but I guess he’s saving that for another time.

Anyway, as I listened, I couldn’t help but notice that the president steered clear of other popular quotes from scripture while making his spiel. For example, he didn’t bother referencing the command, “Thou shall not steal. (Although in all fairness, I suppose it’s somewhat counterproductive to make a push for confiscatory taxes on the one hand while making the case against stealing on the other.)  Nor did he reference the Apostle Paul’s words to the Thessalonians:

(more…)

At one point during the hearings before the House Oversight Committee on February 2nd, Attorney General Eric Holder said he hadn’t learned of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death until 24 hours after it happened. However, this timeline seems questionable at best when you consider that at 2:31 a.m. on very night of Terry’s death (Terry was shot on the night of December 14/15, 2010), then U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke received an email from an unnamed official that read:

On December 14, 2010, a BORTAC agent working in the Nogales, AZ AOR was shot. The agent was conducting Border Patrol operations 18 miles north of the international boundary when he encountered [redacted word] unidentified subjects. Shots were exchanged resulting in the agent being shot. At this time, the agent is being transported to an area where he can be air lifted to an emergency medical center.

Approximately one hour later, Burke received a follow-up email which said “our agent is dead.” The email was sent to Monty Wilkinson, Holder’s Deputy Chief of Staff at the time. And a few hours later, Wilkinson responded that the incident was “tragic” and added: “I’ve alerted the AG [Holder], the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”

Here’s the problem: the timeframe doesn’t match up. What I mean is, if we go by the times the emails were sent and the time at which Wilkinson responded to say he had alerted Holder about Terry’s death, it’s not unreasonable to suppose Holder knew within 12 hours of the murder. Claiming that he didn’t learn about Terry’s death until 24 hours after the fact gave him 12 extra hours in which he could go golfing or play tennis or perhaps even get his team at the DOJ on the same page before news of Terry’s death broke(?).

(more…)

As Attorney General Eric Holder sat before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday February 2nd, his answers were as predictable as they were unacceptable: predictable because they were the well-rehearsed answers he gives each time he’s asked about Fast and Furious (except when he gives different answers because the timeline demands it) and they were unacceptable because many of his answers were simply contrary to reality.

For example, consider how Holder continued to defend (and rationalize) the speed at which the DOJ is releasing subpoenaed documents to the committee. How he simultaneously maintained that the DOJ has “shared huge amounts of information” and promised to share more, albeit on the DOJ’s timetable rather than that of the Oversight Committee.

But the reality is that the DOJ has only released 8% of the subpoenaed documents, or approximately 6,000 documents. And according to a report from the Oversight Committee, among these 6,000 were many which consisted “of blacked-out pages containing no information,” as well as “many duplicate documents” meant only “to bolster [the DOJs] page count.” (In other words, among the measly number of documents delivered, many contain no information on them.)

At the same time, Holder & Co. have turned over 92% more materials (about 80,000 documents) to the DOJ’s in-house Inspector General. And I’m not the only one who views this through a skeptical lense, especially since the IG falls under the auspices of the DOJ. In fact, it’s easy to assume that Holder’s being more open with the DOJ’s IG because he fears them less than he fears Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and others on the Oversight Committee.

Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) certainly believes this is so. Thus during his exchange with Holder last week he said: “I think you’re hiding behind something here.  There [are] things you don’t want us to see.” Added Burton: “You ought to give us the documents.”

Stop for a moment and think about this: What would happen to the average American if they only provided a court or a federally-backed investigative committee with 8% of what that court or investigative body requested? Moreover, what if a portion of the 8% of documents they turned over were blacked-out pages “containing no information”?

Why then should Holder receive special treatment? (It’d be nice if the law were applied equally, to the ruling class as it is to the country class.)

The good news is that Issa is on record saying that if Holder hasn’t reversed course and complied with the document subpoenas by February 9th, the “committee will have no alternative but to move forward with proceedings to hold [Holder] in contempt of Congress.” Therefore, between now and the 9th Holder needs to hand over the documents  and we need to remind Issa that we expect him to follow through with the contempt charges if Holder simply thumbs his nose at the Oversight Committee again.

During the House Oversight Committee hearings yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder denounced what he called a “political gotcha game.” And he was not without his defenders, Democrats all, who also tried to spin the hearing into nothing more than an election year sideshow orchestrated by Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA). Yet ironically, even as Holder and his defenders tried to make Issa and his Republican colleagues look like naïve political opportunists, the rhetoric of the Democrats was little more than a politically charged lesson in sycophancy 101.

For example, when Congressman Gerald Connolly’s (D-VA) time began, he addressed the room, and Holder, thus: “Thank you for being here and showing such dignity and honor in the face of some who are suggesting that you are other [than dignified and honorable].” And Congressman Mike Quigley (D-IL)  opened his time by referring to yesterday’s hearing as a “bonfire of the vanities.” He said this was so because “after nearly six hearings, [by those who] are looking for the perfect case to embarrass the AG and the President,” all that’s been learned is that “this is not it.” These two examples were indicative of the praise Democrats heaped upon Holder, and they clearly demonstrated that the facts don’t matter. Rather, they put party and power above the truth.

Yet as stomach turning as this was, perhaps even worse was the Democrats’ unabashed, open pursuit of more gun control during yesterday’s hearings. Almost to a man, once they finished praising Holder they took turns trying to alleviate the pressure he’s under by suggesting Fast and Furious couldn’t have happened if we had more stringent gun control laws. (In making this point, they conveniently overlooked the number of gun control laws that violated with impunity during Operation Fast and Furious.)

So as the saga unfolded yesterday, once Connolly had praised the “dignity and honor” of Holder, he and the AG basically had a conversation in front of the world about the supposed need for a new federal firearms trafficking law.

(more…)

The highlight of the exchanges today between members of the House Oversight Committee and Attorney General Eric Holder came when Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY) was given her time to question the AG. Her questions are important because she speaks for a district in New York, far removed from the border mayhem and violence connected to Fast and Furious. The fact her constituents are outraged goes a long way in describing how widespread the angst and disgust over Fast and Furious really is.

After opening her time by pointing out that Holder had frequently responded to charges in a dismissive way, by saying they were all part of a political game, or an election year charade, Buerkle said:

I think it’s important to recognize that you, as the Attorney General, with all due respect, need to  be held accountable, or someone does, as to what happened. Of all the issues that face this country, this is the issue that I hear from my district so frequently about. In fact, today I have no fewer than 30 questions from folks in my district who want to know what happened, why it happened, and who’s going to be held accountable.

She then stated that she’d been “taken aback” by Holder’s haughty declarations to others on the committee, wherein he said “I am the Attorney General,” as if that meant he were above reproach. Said Buerkle: “With all due respect, yes you are [the Attorney General], but you are also accountable not only to the folks in my district, but to the American people.

(more…)

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) opened this morning’s hearings by providing a timeline for Fast and Furious: a timeline that briefly described the role of every law enforcement agency involved. He spoke about the debt we owe Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, and agent Terry’s family. And he announced that ATF whistleblower John Dodson was present in the room for the hearings today. (Dodson is the Phoenix agent who risked his career and his life to inform Congress about details of Fast and Furious as they were visible to him on the street.)

Then Issa dug in deeper:

On Oct 11, 2011, after months and months and months of this committee trying to get further documents, we issued subpoenas for documents and were told they’re hard to get. Yet, ten times as many documents have been provided to the Inspector General. Mr. Attorney General, when is the primary investigative committee of congress going to be allowed the same access that the IG has? That the twelve thousand members of the IG have? We ask very little of government by contrast, …but we believe we deserve those answers in at least as timely a fashion as your own IG gets.

We’re going to ask you many things today, hopefully you came prepared to know [the answers to questions] on Fast and Furious. Questions like: What can you do to bring this to a close? What can you do to help the American people know this is no longer going on and will not happen again in the future?

Issa then went on to talk in detail of how frustrating it’s been to try to get information to date. In doing this he referenced former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, the attorney who covered up the connection between Fast and Furious and Brian Terry’s death. And he suggested that Burke “clearly didn’t do his job in a way that anyone can be proud of.” Issa then pointed to more stonewalling on the part of the DOJ, and specifically drew attention to Patrick J. Cunningham, who, when subpoenaed, invoked the 5th to keep from telling what he knew about Fast and Furious.

(more…)

In July 2011, I had a post on Big Government which looked at the Nevada DMV’s refusal to okay a personal license plate request worded “GOPALIN.” The gentleman who had requested the plate, Nevada resident James Linlor, had also requested “PALIN,” “PALIN12,” or “PALIN16,” and been denied on all those as well. As a result, on July 15, 2011, he filed suit in U.S. District Court alleging his rights had been violated.

At the outset it’s important to note that while the Nevada DMV tried to justify their rejection of a “GOPALIN” plate on the grounds that it was supposedly “vulgar or obscene or expressing superiority of political affiliation,” they had no problem okaying the following plates: ““GOGREEN,” “DMOCRAT,” “AL GORE,” “KERRY,” “EDWARDS,” “DEAN,” “HILLARY” and “RONPAUL”.  (Moreover, Linlor claims that when he applied for a “GOOBAMA” plate, the DMV approved it.)

The head and ultimate decision maker for the Nevada DMV is Bruce Breslow, a Democrat who holds his job at the appointment of Nevada’s Republican Governor, Brian Sandoval. And for reasons unknown (and inexplicable), Gov. Sandoval is apparently siding with Breslow on this issue, if only by the simple act of keeping Breslow as DMV Director when such duplicitous, politically-motivated approvals and denials of personalized plate requests are taking place.

Again, just think about it: “GOPALIN” could not be approved because it was too “political” but “DMOCRAT,” HILLARY,” and “GOOBAMA” were all acceptable.

(more…)