So what took so long for this pervert to be caught?  According to the Contra Costa Times, the school is heavily attended by illegal immigrants.  Their parents were afraid to report the situation to the authorities for fear of being arrested and sent back to their home countries.  Manuel Flores, one parent at the school, told the Times that he wouldn’t attend a parents’ meeting, since the school “was full of police.”  Said a lawyer for some of the victims’ families, “One little girl told me she doesn’t want to come forward because she’s afraid her parents will be deported.”

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “While rumors abound of illegal aliens who allegedly refrain from reporting crimes out of fear of deportation, we could find no substantiated cases of crime victims who were removed as a result of having reported crimes to authorities unless the victims turned out to be criminals as well.”  So this is a nonsensical problem.  But it is constantly dragged out by liberal advocates to suggest normalization of illegal immigrants.  The solution, of course, is twofold: first, encourage everybody to report crimes, regardless of immigration status.  Second, control the border.

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.

Keep in mind, that throughout the time the back and forth has been taking place, the DOJ has given the House Oversight Committee just 6,000 documents, but they’ve provided their internal IG with 80,000 plus. The bottom line: time hasn’t been the issue, rather, the refusal to comply has. Nevertheless, Issa has given in and provided Holder with more time anyway. And to make matters worse, as of today the extension has no time limit on it.

So as it stands, Holder has from now till the cows come home to play it his way.

Contrasting an America that can versus an America that can’t, Gingrich compared America’s speed and might in winning WWII versus her current inability to seal its own border. In a lighter moment, the former Speaker contrasted the efficiency of package tracking by Federal Express with the government’s inability to track illegal immigrants, suggesting sending each one a package may be the best way to apprehend the latter.

He also mentioned repealing Obamacare, Dodd Frank, and Sarbanes Oxley on his first day in office. He stated his desire to be a “paycheck president” versus a “food stamp president,” a term he used to denigrate Barack Obama.

Calling for a Fall campaign focused on substance, Gingrich also mentioned eliminating the Capital Gains tax and implementing 100% expensing for all new equipment written off in one year to help get the economy growing. Additionally, he called for a modernization of the workforce, proposing that unemployment compensation be linked to business training programs to avoid paying people for 99 weeks “for doing nothing.”

The solutions were bold but would obviously involve more than giving one speech. He called for the elimination of the EPA, replacing it with a new agency that would take economics and business interests into account in all decision-making. On tax policy, Gingrich called for a 12.5% corporate tax rate, abolishing the death tax, and the option of a 15% flat tax for individuals he called a tax cut.

Citing the need to shrink spending to meet revenue levels and the replacement of the current Civil Service system with a new modern personnel management system, his remarks appeared to be well received. Gingrich also cited abolishing the Dept of Energy (DOE) and a task forced to be headed by Texas Governor Rick Perry focused on the 10th amendment to return power to the states, as appropriate.

Gingrich also called for an audit of the Federal Reserve and an end to Ben Bernanke’s term as Chair of the Federal Reserve. The former Speaker also called for a more honest foreign policy, one acknowledging the dangers of radical Islamists intent on doing America and Americans harm.

That’s what press reports seem to indicate. And we’re now trying to get to the bottom of this emerging scandal.

On January 13, 2012, JW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to obtain documents regarding meetings and communications between government agencies and Hollywood director Kathryn Bigelow. If the name sounds familiar, it is because Bigelow is the Academy Award-winning director of the military film “The Hurt Locker.” She is also the ex-wife of Hollywood director James Cameron of “Avatar” fame.

At issue in JW’s lawsuit is the possibility that the Obama administration leaked classified information to Bigelow and Annapurna Pictures as source material for the making of Bigelow’s not-yet-released film, tentatively titled “Killing bin Laden.”

Here’s what we’re after, pursuant to JW FOIA requests filed with the DOD and the CIA on August 9, 2011:

All records of communications between any officer, official, or employee of the DoD and Ms. Bigelow, as well as with Mr. Mark Boal, Ms. Megan Ellison, or employees of Annapurna Pictures.

(The same request was made of the CIA with regard to Bigelow, Boal, Ellison, and employees of Annapurna Pictures.)

The DOD admitted receiving the FOIA request on August 22, 2011, but advised Judicial Watch that “at this time, we are unable to make a release determination on your request within twenty (20) working days” of August 9, which would have been by September 6, 2011. The CIA acknowledged receiving the FOIA request on August 16, 2011, indicating that “the large number of FOIA requests CIA received has created unavoidable delays, making it unlikely that we can respond with the 20 working days the FOIA requires.”

Well, this stonewalling has dragged on for months and we still have no documents. We haven’t even been told by the Obama administration if documents would be produced – hence our lawsuit.

Bigelow’s film, in production since 2008, originally intended to document the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden. The top secret Navy SEAL team mission that led to the capture and killing of bin Laden is reportedly the source for the film’s new content and conclusion.

As reported by Reuter’s, “It has been alleged that Bigelow…in preparation for the script to their Annapurna Pictures movie about the killing of Osama Bin Laden – received classified information regarding his death.”

Now, why would the Obama administration do such a thing?

First off, this is an administration that has shown a proclivity to selectively releasing information that helps the “Obama brand” while withholding information that may be harmful or embarrassing. (See the selective release of classified documents disparaging the use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”)

Second, this is also an administration that aggressively uses federal agencies to assist the Obama campaign. (See the recently dismissed lawsuit against Boeing in support of Big Labor and the flow of Obamacare waivers to unions.)

The conclusion seems obvious: The alleged leaking of this information was an effort to boost the Obama 2012 presidential election campaign.

Thank you to liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd for alerting us to this abuse:

The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made “The Hurt Locker” will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 – perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.

The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration.

It was clear that the White House had outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood when Boal got welcomed to the upper echelons of the White House and the Pentagon and showed up recently – to the surprise of some military officers – at a C.I.A. ceremony celebrating the hero Seals [sic].

In short, if press reports from the liberal media are to be believed, the Obama administration released classified national security information to help Hollywood make a two-hour Obama campaign commercial to be released just weeks before the 2012 elections.

Judicial Watch is in hot pursuit of these “Killing bin Laden” records in order to get to the truth in the matter. And at the same time, we continue to fight in court for the release of the post-mortem photographs and video recordings of bin Laden. At this point, given the alleged Bigelow leaks, it’s hard to put any stock in the claim made by Obama administration officials that their stonewalling of the bin Laden death photos has anything to do with national security.

To appease those they view as rigid, conservative Catholics, the administration’s talking points are that they’ll “work it out” with them, give them a year to “adapt” their consciences to engaging in behavior that is against their values, and, perhaps, the favorite means of the White House to ensure a minimum of voter loss: hand out a waiver.

But, exactly what should be “worked out?” “Adapt” to what? A “waiver” from what? All of this talk of flexibility is helping the White House to muddy up the real issue.

The spin by the White House, in the midst of this constitutional crisis, is simply a variant on its age- old theme that healthcare is an unalienable right that the government must give to people. Remember that, in liberalism, unalienable rights come from the government, not from the Creator. With the contraception, etc. mandate, the administration just tweaked the message a bit- made it a bit “pinker,” dare we say: that all women deserve access to free contraception- including Catholic women. How could we leave Catholic women out? After all, that would be discriminatory, right? Wrong.

Women do not deserve access to free contraception, sterilization, or abortion-inducing drugs. The word deserve is the linchpin to the common liberal ploy of guilt induction that can only be assuaged, according to liberals, by government intervention. To deserve something is to be entitled to it. Enter the government.

Women- Catholic or not- do not deserve contraception. They choose it. They choose it because they choose to have sexual intercourse. If they choose to have sexual intercourse and do not wish to become pregnant, they take a risk. If they do not wish to take that risk, they could choose not to have sex. If they choose to have sex anyway, then they should pay for contraceptives if they wish to minimize their chances of becoming pregnant. It’s really not so hard.

If women had health savings accounts, which would allow them to purchase health-related needs out of pocket, they could use those accounts to buy contraceptives. They would be free to make their own choices. If they have ObamaCare, they have no choice because the government tells them- and everyone else- how their healthcare dollars will be spent. With ObamaCare, women- and everyone else- pay for those contraceptives, even if they are middle-aged and no longer need them.

To manipulate women- and everyone else- into feeling good about the fact that, with ObamaCare, there is no personal choice in spending healthcare dollars, the Obama administration is telling everyone that women deserve, that they are entitled to, free contraceptives. But, they are lying, because, in the end, women who would choose to purchase contraceptives would spend significantly less if they bought them with their own healthcare dollars from their own health savings account than through the high cost of health insurance and taxes associated with ObamaCare. If we own our health insurance plans, we make the decisions about how the dollars are spent, we look for the best buys for our money, or maybe we choose not to buy at all. When we all become consumers, costs come down, and we are in charge of our bodies.

If those who are outraged by this mandate cave to any attempt by the Obama administration to assuage their ire, they will be committing the same mistake they made in the first place: supporting government intervention in healthcare. Indeed, some in the Church have screwed up big time in its support of government intervention, under the guise of social justice. It is unfortunate that these individuals have contributed to this issue becoming the constitutional crisis it is, simply because they bought into the idea that government should provide the same healthcare for everyone. It is unfortunate that they bought into the idea that government should have the job of redistributing wealth rather than the people themselves who, history has shown, actually do a pretty good job of it on their own, through their own personal charitable donations.

Because some in the Church welcomed government intervention in healthcare, they may be willing to accept a “waiver” of sorts, from the contraception, etc. mandate, from the Obama administration, if one is offered. In that case, however, they will have skirted around the real issue. The big elephant in the room of why anyone at all, private insurers included, Catholic or not, should be forced, by the government, to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs will be overlooked and obfuscated by the allaying of a perceived constitutional crisis concerning freedom of religion.

Liberal women who say they deserve free contraception from the government, are, quite frankly, selling their bodies to the government. They are the least liberated women of all. If the government gives you something because it says you deserve it, it then has a stake in you, and it owns you. Women who make their own choices and use their own dollars to purchase products based on those choices, are, indeed, liberated.

If all Americans used their own healthcare dollars to make their own purchases for their healthcare needs, they would be much freer and likely have more of their own money to boot.

According to Reuters, these anti-government extremists “may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.”

Routine encounters with police can turn violent “at the drop of a hat,” said Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI’s counterterrorism division.

“We thought it was important to increase the visibility of the threat with state and local law enforcement,” he said.

In May 2010, two West Memphis, Arkansas, police officers were shot and killed in an argument that developed after they pulled over a “sovereign citizen” in traffic.

Last year, an extremist in Texas opened fire on a police officer during a traffic stop. The officer was not hit.

The heightened concern against “sovereign citizens” is the result of the rise in legal convictions from 10 such cases in 2009 to 18 cases in 2010 and 2011 respectively.

“We are being inundated right now with requests for training from state and local law enforcement on sovereign-related matters,” said Casey Carty, an FBI supervisory special agent.

The Sovereign Citizens United website describes the movement this way:

Sovereign Citizens United is a citizens group dedicated to protecting private property ownership and the freedom and liberty that is our birthright as American citizens. We are a clearing house of information and tools to facilitate and promote those goals in every community in America…

We do NOT endorse non-payment of taxes or violence to achieve these changes. We do NOT endorse giving up a social security number and we do NOT endorse violence against the police or the government.

How many “sovereign citizens” exist in the United States is hard to say, reports Reuters.  However, J.J. MacNab, a former tax and insurance expert whose published works have appeared in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s publications, estimates that perhaps 100,000 citizens consider themselves part of the sovereign citizen movement.

Reuters notes that, “Sovereign members often express particular outrage at tax collection, putting Internal Revenue Service employees at risk.”

This, of course, is blatantly false. To begin, the Constitution says nothing about marriage whatsoever, which means that its definition is left to the states to decide. Second, there are plenty of great reasons to uphold traditional marriage and to disapprove alternative forms of marriage, ranging from thousands of years of history to state interest in childbirth to state interest in child rearing. Thirdly, the notion that the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution applies to homosexual behavior rather than innate distinctions like race is absurd. Marriage laws approve and disapprove behavior, not status. While gay rights advocates like to equate race and sexuality, the two are vastly different – you can’t shake your race, but your behavior can always change, no matter how unpleasant that change may be. Behavior is routinely regulated by the states and invariably affects people differently based on whether or not they engage in said behavior.

Leave aside the absolutely correct charges that this ruling is a legal abomination, and the fact that our judiciary wields far too much clout overall. Let’s focus instead, for a moment, on the impact this ruling will have on the presidential race.

President Obama has been able to elude the question of same-sex marriage overall. His slippery rhetoric indicates that he’s pro-civil unions but anti-same sex marriage but is “evolving.” This ruling will force him to take a side. He will likely attempt to suggest that this is a decision best left to the courts, but he’s never taken that position before – see, for example, campaign finance reform. It’s unlikely that the gay community or the religious community will allow him to get away with that.

If Obama is forced to answer for his position on same-sex marriage, he will be in serious trouble come election time. He is already suffering from low approval ratings among religious groups, and just this week he alienated Catholics with the Health and Human Services announcement that birth control coverage would be required from Catholic employers. Minority voters, especially Latinos and blacks, are anti-same sex marriage as a rule (which is why Prop. 8 passed in the first place – many blacks showed up to vote for Obama in California and voted in favor of traditional marriage at the same time).

While the press likes to complain about the right wing on social issues, the fact remains that same-sex marriage is not a popular movement in key states for Obama. In Florida, for example, 53% believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal, as compared to 37% who believe it should be; in Ohio, that split is 53% to 33%; in Pennsylvania, it’s 51% to 38%. Overall, Americans are moving in the direction of same-sex marriage (a Pew poll showed that Americans now approve same-sex marriage by a 46-44 margin), but older people and nonwhites are particularly against it (just 39% of nonwhites support same-sex marriage). In short, this is not a winning issue for Obama.

It becomes even more of a losing issue because it is being imposed from above by the courts. Obama has largely been able to avoid potential controversy arising from the fact that he will likely have two more Supreme Court nominees if he’s re-elected. With this issue making its way to the Supreme Court, there’s little doubt that this will now become a key campaign issue.