What Obama Should Have Done With That Umbrella

There is much ado about the umbrella stunt today.

Obama knows the optics are terrible, but like the looky-loos at a train wreck, he can't help himself.   

Didn't you just love that "Why don't we get a couple of Marines, they're gonna look good next to us...".  

Clown.

Not enough sense to come in out of the rain.  I'm fairly certain taxpayers wouldn't mind ponying up some money for a tarp for such occasions when walking inside is logistically difficult for this man.  

No, he knows it looks bad.  He's just sticking a finger in your eye.

As long as you're talking about Marine umbrella protocol then you're not talking about Benghazi, the IRS waging a campaign against American free speech, the Department of Justice trolling AP phone records, or the HHS extorting health care professionals.

Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Now, if Obama had done this, I'd have been impressed:

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

The Thugocracy Is Alive and Well In Washington

I know now why I have subconsciously backed off political blogging and have focused on things like estate sales and Oktoberfest.  I just thought it was my mom's illness taking up my concerns, but now I have figured out that it is also the fact that I have given up trying to figure out liberals or save them from themselves.  For a while I thought I could reach a few of them but I can't go up against the legacy media who are complicit in abetting Obama's destruction of America.

Consider the new Fast and Furious bombshell from Univision (link to see video).  

Please take the time to watch that and share it where ever you can.

ABC News is the only one in the mainstream media covering this as far as I can tell:

On January 30, 2010, a commando of at least 20 hit men parked themselves outside a birthday party of high school and college students in Villas de Salvarcar, Ciudad Juarez. Near midnight, the assassins, later identified as hired guns for the Mexican cartel La Linea, broke into a one-story house and opened fire on a gathering of nearly 60 teenagers. Outside, lookouts gunned down a screaming neighbor and several students who had managed to escape. Fourteen young men and women were killed, and 12 more were wounded before the hit men finally fled.

Indirectly, the United States government played a role in the massacre by supplying some of the firearms used by the cartel murderers. Three of the high caliber weapons fired that night in Villas de Salvarcar were linked to a gun tracing operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), according to a Mexican army document obtained exclusively by Univision News.

Yet remember how quickly everyone was to jump on the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Even Obama weighed in on that one.  Pundette:

I guess none of those 14 kids killed or 12 injured looked enough like Obama's hypothetical sons to matter? 

Mark Steyn asks, "How many dead Mexican teenagers does it take to change a light news day?"

One more time.  Eric Holder was complicit in Fast and Furious.  Obama is invoking Executive Privilege and stonewalling the investigation.  What else does he not want us to discover?  And why would anyone vote to keep this thugocracy in office?

Eric Holder Suddenly Worried About "Public Safety"

Adding insult to injury to Brian Terry's family, Eric Holder is claiming that the search for justice and accountability in the Fast and Furious debacle is simply a political tactic designed to embarrass Obama:

In his first interview since Thursday’s vote, Holder said lawmakers have used an investigation of a botched gun-tracking operation as a way to seek retribution against the Justice Department for its policies on a host of issues, including immigration, voting rights and gay marriage. He said the chairman of the committee leading the inquiry, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), is engaging in political theater as the Justice Department tries to focus on public safety.  

This is an incredible thing to say.  Eric Holder put guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and now he's worried about public safety?

One border patrol agent is dead.  One ICE agent is dead.  Hundreds of Mexican citizens are dead because of this operation.  And now Holder is suddenly worried about the "focus on public safety"?    Doesn't it seem that a conscientious AG would want to get to the bottom of this instead of stonewalling?

The only thing this investigation has to do with Barack Obama is what he knew, when he knew it, and what's in those documents he claimed Executive Privilege over.

It is well past time for Holder to resign.

Facts on the Fast and Furious investigation can be found here.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

On the Reading Table

I'm deeply engrossed in Katie Pavlich's book Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Shameless Cover-Up.

I thought I knew a pretty good bit about the scandal until I started reading this book.  I'm shocked at the extent of the operation and the ensuing cover-up.  The contempt vote against Eric Holder doesn't seem to be justice enough after reading this book.

If you haven't picked it up yet, I highly recommend it.  Nothing dry and political here: it reads like a crime thriller off the fiction best seller list.  Sadly however, it's all true.

The story continues to unfold, of course.  There is a protest in front of The White House today, but of course, Obama isn't there; he's taken the week off.  The Secret Service shut the protest down early because of "a suspicious package" nearby.

Speaker John Boehner says the civil suit will proceed and that "his chamber will likely file a civil suit" to get the documents they seek.

Heritage has a brief history and timeline of Fast and Furious.

Read Katie's book (hardcover and Kindle links below).  You'll be stunned at what this administration has been up to.

The Congressional Black Caucus Works Itself Into a Snit

Well, this is mature:

The Congressional Black Caucus plans to walk off the House floor during tomorrow’s votes to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress, according to a letter being circulated among members of Congress.

The CBC says in the letter that they refuse to participate "in any vote that would tarnish the image of Congress...".

In that case, they should have walked out during the ObamaCare vote.

It's difficult to read this with a straight face:

“We adamantly oppose this partisan attack and refuse to participate in any vote that would tarnish the image of Congress or of an attorney general who has done nothing but work tirelessly to protect the rights of the American people.  We must reflect upon why we are elected to this body and choose now to stand up for justice,” 

Really!?

Like the right to vote without intimidation?

Like the right to purge illegals from your voting rolls?

What about Brian Terry's rights?  Did Eric Holder protect those?

The CBC claims that the case against Holder is a partisan waste of time.  Suddenly, now, they'd rather be "creating jobs."  They should have worried about that three years ago instead of wasting all our time with ObamaCare.

And by the way, the government doesn't "create" jobs.  That's part of the problem.

Like a Dog Waiting for an Earthquake

It feels as if we're on the precipice of something big here.  Everything is pending.  It's just a feeling in the air.  Like how a dog will cower when he senses an earthquake or a tornado is coming.  Tension.

The ObamaCare ruling is coming tomorrow.

The Eric Holder contempt vote is coming tomorrow.

And then there's that election in November.

I can hardly wait for this ObamaCare ruling tomorrow; if this goes against the petulant man-child in any way at all I can only imagine the wrath that will come down upon us from him.  Just look at what he did to Arizona after he lost one of the four points in his suit against the state.

Rush Limbaugh:

I said yesterday on this program that the Obama regime told Arizona to drop dead. Last night on Fox News on the Greta Van Susteren show, the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer -- we admire Jan Brewer here -- went on Fox News and she said, "The Obama administration told Arizona to drop dead," and that is exactly what's happened. This is unbelievable. I don’t know how this guy is going to get over 20% of the vote in November. I don't believe what is happening in this country. I literally can't believe it, folks. 

I am sitting here, my mouth agape -- wide open -- in stunned disbelief! And that's not accurate because I know these people. I shouldn't be surprised, but, nevertheless, I am. And I'm scared. I am scared of what these people are doing to this country. This is not... For an administration, after winning, to react the way this one did and basically tell Arizona, "As far as we're concerned, you don’t even exist"? As we told you yesterday on this program, the regime said it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws.

I know what Rush means when he says "my mouth agape."  I've felt that way for the past four years.  Stunned amazement.

How can a sitting president refuse, just flatly refuse, to enforce the laws of this country?  The laws he took an oath to uphold?

The oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

It's that simple.

Screw you, Arizona.  You're on your own.

That's just great.  What are they supposed to do now?

If this is Obama's reaction to losing one of his four points against Arizona, what in the world will he do if he loses on ObamaCare?   Will he revive it with a stream of Executive Orders?

We have a dictator, folks.  And if this man is not voted out of office in November, we're screwed.  I know that sounds alarmist and "extreme," even.  But this is the most lawless, dangerous, self-absorbed, incompetent man ever to hold the office.  Jimmy Carter wasn't bright but this goes to a whole new level.

Hugh Hewitt has a new book out:  The Brief Against Obama:  The Rise, Fall, and Epic Fail of the Hope and Change Presidency.  I haven't read the book yet but Hewitt talks with Kathryn Jean Lopez here.

An excerpt of that interview:

LOPEZ: You accuse the president of abuses of office worse than any other president. Is he really worse than Nixon? Clinton. 

HEWITT: Nixon turned over the tapes. Clinton agreed to the deposition and the disbarment. President Obama’s assault on the Constitution via his unilateralism is still unchecked and unrepented. And the leaks about national security in an age of terror are astonishing and deeply troubling. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has referred to why these leaks are so damaging, and they make the “crimes” of Watergate and Monicagate seem minor-league by comparison. 

LOPEZ: Why is Fast and Furious so important? 

HEWITT: There is a body count, and it includes an American law-enforcement agent, Brian Terry.

It boggles the mind how anyone can continue to support this president.

And speaking of books, if you haven't yet read David Limbaugh's book The Great Destroyer, order it now.  I'm not finished with it but as I've been reading I've made a list of Obama's offenses, blunders, lawless actions, and just plain incompetence.  I'm up to 65 examples and am only halfway through the book.  The book is so thoroughly documented and footnoted that its content is irrefutable even to the most ardent supporters.  A great review can be found here.

Last night I started re-watching the John Adams mini-series.  The series was so well done and, to my mind, so artfully conveyed the intentions of the founders as they debated independence and wrote the Constitution for this country.  It made me sad watching it last night because we have strayed so far, so far, from their intentions.

From now until November this blog will focus with a renewed dedication on the defeat of Barack Obama in his bid for re-election.

Never has so much rested on one election.

Add Marco Rubio to the List

Marco Rubio joins the growing list of those calling for Eric Holder's resignation:

Busted By Nancy Pelosi

Darn it, Nancy Pelosi has Republicans all figured out.  The cat is out of the bag:

Republicans are attacking Attorney General Eric Holder to help states purge their voting rolls ahead of November's elections, the top House Democrat charged Thursday. 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday's committee vote to hold Holder in contempt of Congress — and next week's scheduled floor vote on the same resolution — represent a thinly veiled Republican scheme to distract the attorney general from his fight against state laws that have erected new hurdles to voting and registration, hurdles that would suppress areas that tend to vote Democratic.

Because if you were going to stage a scheme to set up Eric Holder, isn't Fast and Furious what you'd come up with?

Someone stage an intervention for this woman, please.

(H/T: memeorandum)

Even After a Contempt Citation Holder Still Blames Bush

In response to the vote today from the House Oversight Committee finding him in contempt of Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder has issued a statement.  The statement in itself is indicative of what got Holder in this mess in the first place.

All I could think of as I read it was an ostrich with his head in the sand.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, as they say.

Let's look at it.  Here's his first paragraph:

“In recent months, the Justice Department has made unprecedented accommodations to respond to information requests by Chairman Issa about misguided law enforcement tactics that began in the previous administration and allowed illegal guns to be taken into Mexico.  Department professionals have spent countless hours compiling and providing thousands of documents -- nearly 8,000 -- to Chairman Issa and his committee.   My staff has had numerous meetings with congressional staff to try and accommodate these requests and yesterday, I met with Chairman Issa to offer additional internal Department documents and information that would satisfy what he identified as the Committee’s single outstanding question.

"Misguided law enforcement tactics" he says.  I'm sure that makes Brian Terry's family feel better. Their son's murder was a result of "misguided law enforcement tactics."  Not only that, but these "tactics" are all George Bush's fault.

He is, of course, referring to the operation "Wide Receiver" but there is a big difference between the two.  Wide Receiver was conducted with the cooperation of the Mexican government while Fast and Furious was not.  In Wide Receiver some of the weapons were fitting with tracking devices.  The operation was much smaller in scale than the estimated 2,000 weapons involved in Fast and Furious and when some of those guns went missing the operation was shut down.  No border agent was killed as a result of Wide Receiver.

For Holder to insist that this is a continuation of that operation is ludicrous.  The oversight of Fast and Furious was non-existent as more and more weapons continued to disappear while agents were directed to look the other way.

But, back to Holder's statement.  Most of those 8,000 documents to which he refers are from operation Wide Receiver - NOT the documents Issa and the committee are looking for.

Next paragraph:

“Unfortunately, Chairman Issa has rejected all of these efforts to reach a reasonable accommodation.  Instead, he has chosen to use his authority to take an extraordinary, unprecedented and entirely unnecessary action, intended to provoke an avoidable conflict between Congress and the Executive Branch.  This divisive action does not help us fix the problems that led to this operation or previous ones and it does nothing to make any of our law enforcement agents safer.  It's an election-year tactic intended to distract attention -- and, as a result -- has deflected critical resources from fulfilling what remains my top priority at the Department of Justice:  Protecting the American people.  

This is ridiculous and is an attempt to make this whole mess seem like Issa's fault.  He's so unreasonable, he has "rejected all of these efforts to reach a reasonable accommodation."  Reasonable?  Holder has had months, months to produce the requested documents.  When you are under subpoena to produce documents, or discovery, you don't get to just choose the ones you want to turn over.

The "unnecessary action" of a contempt citation could have been avoided if Holder had complied with the subpoena.  Contrary to Holder's assertion that Issa simply wants to "provoke an avoidable conflict between Congress and the Executive Branch," it is Holder who brought that action about by his refusal to comply.  Mr. Holder is not above the law.

Holder asserts that "this divisive action does not help us fix the problems" and he's correct that no justice for Terry's family will come as long as he dithers.

AG Holder suggests that this whole proceeding is an "election-year tactic" meant to distract and embarrass the administration.  I would suggest that Holder is the distraction and embarrassment.  Had he provided the documents requested there would be no contempt proceeding and no need for executive privilege which can only serve to push all this to the front of the mainstream media who, so far, had been doing a pretty good job not reporting on Fast and Furious.

Next paragraph:

“Simply put, any claims that the Justice Department has been unresponsive to requests for information are untrue.  From the beginning, Chairman Issa and certain members of the Committee have made unsubstantiated allegations first, then scrambled for facts to try to justify them later. That might make for good political theater, but it does little to uncover the truth or address the problems associated with this operation and prior ones dating back to the previous Administration. 

What "unsubstantiated allegations" does Holder mean?  Brian Terry's murder?  I don't think that's debatable.  Has anyone denied that the weapon that killed him came from the Fast and Furious operation?

While Holder might think all this is "good political theater" he would be better served to appreciate the seriousness of the situation and the gravity of the proceedings.  As far as doing "little to uncover the truth," well, Holder is doing just fine at keeping the truth covered up, with a little help from his boss.

And he again blames Bush.

Next.

“I have spent most of my career in law enforcement and worked closely with brave agents who put their lives on the line every day.  I know the sacrifices they make, so as soon as allegations of gunwalking came to my attention – and well before Chairman Issa expressed any interest in this issue -- I ordered the practice stopped.  I made necessary personnel changes in the Department's leadership and instituted policy changes to ensure better oversight of significant investigations.  And, I directed the Department's Inspector General to open a comprehensive investigation.  That investigation is ongoing, and the American people and Congress can count on it to produce a tough, independent review of the facts. 

He "ordered the practice stopped"?  After how many guns disappeared?  Certainly plenty of them.  As far as what Holder knew and when he knew it, that's almost beside the point.  As head of DOJ the buck stops with him.  Emails and other documents certainly prove that he knew about the operation; the operation was ridiculous to start with.  To let these guns just walk across the border untracked was an exercise in incompetence.

Holder's attempt to have the DOJ investigate itself is too ridiculous to respond to.

Next:

“When Chairman Issa later began his own investigation, I made it clear that the Department would cooperate with all appropriate oversight requests, while still adhering to our legal obligations to protect information involving ongoing law enforcement investigations, legally-protected grand jury material and other sensitive information whose disclosure would endanger the American people or our agents investigating open cases.   

AG Holder says here that he "made it clear" that he would cooperate.  So far, he has not.  He can certainly turn over requested documents to the Oversight Committee without endangering the American people or agents.  It would appear that agents had more to worry about from Fast and Furious than from Holder's cooperation in the investigation.

In conclusion Holder says,

“The American people deserve better.  That is why, I will remain focused on, and committed to, the Justice Department’s mission to protect the rights, safety, and best interests of my fellow citizens and to stand by my brave colleagues in law enforcement.” 

 The American people certainly do deserve better.  And if I was in law enforcement and Holder was standing beside me, I'd duck.

Now all we need is the idiots in the media to start screaming racism and the obfuscation is complete.  Oh, wait...


(H/T:  memeorandum)

23-17: CONTEMPT

On a 23-17 vote, Eric Holder is voted in contempt of Congress for withholding subpoenaed documents.

What's next?

The measure goes to the House for consideration.  A sitting attorney general has never been held in contempt before.

Another historic (or hysteric?) milestone for the Obama administration.

Executive Privilege (UPDATED)

Well this ought to make things interesting.

Eric Holder, unwilling to turn over requested documents, asked Obama last night to invoke executive privilege over said documents.  Thus, "the most transparent administration ever" steps big into a Fast and Furious cover-up.

The vote on contempt is still on.

Contemptible indeed.

Stay tuned for links and updates.  Also stay tuned to Memeorandum where this is now a thread.

Update 1:  Remember, Bush invoked executive privilege six times.  This is how Obama felt about that:



Michelle Malkin has Holder's letter to Obama.

Pirate's Cove:

It does make one wonder what Eric Holder and the Obama administration are hiding in refusing to produce all the relevant documentation. When it comes to government, there is nothing wrong with the saying “if they have nothing to hide, they would produce the documents.” Except when it is national security. 

There's no question that Obama's intervention raises the stakes significantly; if nothing else it will now force the mainstream media to report the story.

More to come.


Update 2:  You can watch the Holder hearing online here.


On Fox, Juan Williams even says, "This looks bad for the White House."  


Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA) speaking in the Holder hearing says "the facts are leading us to very legitimate inquiries."

Update 3:

Twitter reactions:

Update 4:
Wow.  Rep. Quigley (D-IL) says "IF this is about Bryan Terry..."; he goes after gun shows where "mentally ill" people can buy guns.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ):  "I am convinced that holding the Attorney General in contempt is the only way to send a message to this administration" and ones following that nobody is above the law.

Rep. Danny Daivs (D-IL) says the hearing is "partisan and rancorous."  

In a released statement, Sen. Grassley says:

How can the President assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the President exert executive privilege over documents he's supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances. The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it's never repeated again.” 

And this is now at the top of Memeorandum.

Update 5:

Ann Althouse:

I think a lot of Americans, when they hear "executive privilege" think of Nixon. And, unfortunately for Obama, we've been hearing plenty of talk about Watergate lately, what with the 40-year anniversary of the break-in. Most notably: "Woodward and Bernstein: 40 years after Watergate, Nixon was far worse than we thought." Ironically, that was a mainstream media effort to help Obama.  

But Obama has suddenly chosen to look like Nixon. It must be worth it. And without the documents, we must speculate about what is in them. 

Rush is talking about this, of course, today.  He points out that "the regime" is blaming the Bush administration for all of this, then "why won't they release" the documents?  

Update 6:

A valid point by Victor Davis Hanson:

Would that the Obama administration had cared as much about protecting the security secrets involving the Predator drone program, the bin Laden raid, the operations on the Afghan border and in Yemen, and the cyberwar against Iran as it is does about protecting the unknowns of Fast and Furious. 

No lie.

New National Defense Policy: Unite the World!

What should we do about Iran?

We learned this week that Obama was briefed on the plot in June to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States. 

In June?

And it hits the media now?

Now that Eric Holder is awaiting a subpoena and under fire for his part in Fast and Furious?  What timing!

Have no fear.  The Obama administration is on the case.  (Cue Kumbaya...)

"It's critically important that we unite the world in the isolation of and dealing with the Iranians," Vice President Joe Biden said on "The Early Show" Wednesday. "That's the surest way to be able to get results."

Better than sanctions, eh?  Not.

"Unite the world?"  Really? Delusional much?  Quote of the day to Investor's Business Daily:

What will we do? Cut off a few more bank accounts? Ask for more meaningless sanctions? We bomb Libya, the mouse that roared, but won't even send so much as an iPhone to Iranian dissidents who share a common enemy — Tehran.

In 2009, when Iranian dissidents risked their lives to demonstrate against the gray-beard mullahs oppressing them, Tehran paused briefly as the Soviet Union did in Hungary in 1956. Seeing no Western support for the uprising, Tehran unleashed its security apparatus to suppress and murder — much as Moscow ordered the tanks to roll into Budapest. Now we are Iran's target.

Anybody but Obama in 2012.

Eric Holder's DOJ Files Suit Against Alabama

Eric Holder's DOJ and the Obama administration have filed suit on yet another state for their attempt to control illegal immigration in absence of the feds attempt to do so.

This time it's Alabama.

"Today's action makes clear that setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility that cannot be addressed through a patchwork of state immigration laws," said Attorney General Eric Holder.  "The department is committed to evaluating each state immigration law and making decisions based on the facts and the law. To the extent we find state laws that interfere with the federal government's enforcement of immigration law, we are prepared to bring suit, as we did in Arizona."

I'm trying to find an example of "the federal government's enforcement of immigration law."  I'll let you know if I find one.

DOJ is FUBAR

In case you needed further proof that Obama's Department of Justice is FUBAR, consider the decision by Eric Holder and company to sue the Berkley school district on behalf of a 29 year old teacher who was refused a three week leave of absence (in December!) so she could perform the hajj.

Mona Charen reports that this teacher had only been on the job for nine months when she made her request.  In Berkley, as in most school districts, they like their teachers in the classroom, especially when preparing for high stakes testing.  Safoorah Khan, the teacher requesting leave, is a math teacher.

In the end, she quit her job so she could perform her religious duty and filed a complaint to the EEOC, got a lawyer, and now the DOJ has taken up the case.  The rationale for the DOJ is to combat “a real headwind of intolerance against Muslim communities.”

Seriously?

As Charen points out, this district just wanted a teacher in the classroom.  They didn't refuse this request because of her religion; they refused it because they also have a job to perform which is educating the children of the district.  They didn't tell Miss Khan that she'd be fired for performing the hajj on her own time.  The refused to give her three weeks off during the school year.

I wonder if the Berkley school district allows for sabbatical leave?  Couldn't she do her time, file for sabbatical and then go, if this fell during a school year?  Or, as Charen suggests, wait until such a time that she could do this during her summer vacation?

Ridiculous.  Even more ridiculous is that DOJ would look twice at this considering they refused to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for blatant voter intimidation caught on tape.

FUBAR.

Eric Holder Must Go

Two excellent pieces calling for the firing of Eric Holder:  one from the Wall Street Journal and one over at Hot Air.

In short:

The right policy is to separate the laws of war from the laws of civilian society. Burglars and muggers should be tried in civilian courts. Unlawful enemy combatants captured on the battlefield deserve to be held in Guantanamo and tried in military commissions. And if Mr. Holder can't tell the difference, he should find a new job.

Exactly.

Of course, the New York Times thinks Holder did a fine job, a fine job!  Way to go, Eric!

The verdict in the first federal trial of a former Guantánamo detainee has unleashed the usual chest-thumping and fear-mongering from the usual politicians. They are disappointed that the defendant was only convicted of one count of conspiring to blow up American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 — a crime for which he will probably serve a life sentence. 

Figures.

Border Violence and DOJ Attacks Arizona

Obama says our border with Mexico "is as safe as its ever been," but that's apparently not saying much.

The AP reports of a shootout that left 21 dead and six wounded last Thursday just 12 miles south of the Arizona border near Nogales, Mexico.  Nogales has had 131 murders this year, already closing in on their number of 135 for last year.

Other border cities are seeing the same thing.

Ciudad Juarez had 2,600 murders last year.

Despite the contention in the article that the violence has not spilled over the border one has to assume it's a matter of time.  One only need look at the murder of rancher Rob Krentz to conclude that violence has already crossed the border..  An illegal immigrant was suspected because Krentz told his brother he had spotted an illegal on his property.  When Krentz didn't show up shortly after for a noon meeting with his brother the alarm was sounded.

Meanwhile, Eric Holder's Justice Department is filing suit today against Arizona's tough immigration law on the premise that federal law trumps state statutes.

William Teach has some words on that rationale:

Just because Los Federales make a law, doesn’t mean it is supreme. Furthermore, there are two ways to look at the supremacy clause, one which is that there is no reason why the States can’t take a federal law and make it stronger, which is what Arizona did. Furthermore, the clause says that the laws made must be in line with what the Constitution allows the federal government to enact, but, that is a separate subject (health insurance mandate, anyone?).

This coupled with Obama's recent statement that the borders "are just too vast" to be protected by fences and the border patrol give one cause for concern.

The administration's abuse of Arizona coupled with it's abuse of the entire Gulf region over the past 78 days makes Obama's pledge to "bring the country together" just ridiculous.  And dangerous.

New Depths of Scum Dragging for the NYT

I wish I had the time this morning to sit here and dissect and dismantle this NYT editorial regarding Eric Holder's testimony yesterday and his position on the KSM trial.  The entire editorial is full of misstatements, false information and erroneously drawn conclusions.  Unfortunately, I have to go to work and can't spent a leisurely morning smacking down the Grey Lady.  But somebody will get to it.  I'd keep my eye on The Corner or Memeorandum - somebody is surely going to handle this one.

I can't resist a couple of quick notes, however. 

The editorial expresses nostalgia for the good old days of the Obama administration where it seemed like he was going to be "cleaning up the mess" George Bush made with detention policies.  You know how Obama likes to grab that mop and push everyone out of the way so he can clean up things. 

After the nostalgia, the editorial then blasts, among other things, "Republican fear mongering" as being the reason the KSM trip to NYC for trial failed.  There are lots of other reasons and somehow I don't call it "fear mongering" when you're pointing out verifiable truths.  For the Republicans to point out that bringing KSM to New York would be an expensive security logistical nightmare which is unnecessary given that we already have the means to try him at Guantanamo where he belongs is NOT "fear mongering."  It's called "truth", but that's something the NYT seems to have problems with.

This statement grabbed me:

Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have a bill that would require the military detention and trial of anyone accused of any terrorism-related crime, including American citizens. That is the stuff of police states.

"The stuff of police states"?  Really?  Don't get me started.  As long as we're headed toward full blown socialism, NOW you're going to pick bones over "police states"?  We already have a "nanny state."  Why not?

Really, there's so much more, but I have to get ready for work.  I can't waste anymore time with the NYT this morning.

To Close or Not to Close..Guantanamo

There are two conflicting stories on Gitmo this morning.

The first is from Michael Gershon's piece in The Washington Post on the ineptitude of Eric Holder. Gershon lists Holder's blunders and says with regard to Gitmo (emphasis mine):

"Fourth, there is the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay and the civilian trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other accused Sept. 11 conspirators in Manhattan. Under Holder's direction, this process has collapsed. There is no serious plan to close Guantanamo. Holder has been unable to articulate reasons some terrorism cases are referred to civilian courts while others are tried in military tribunals...."

But that's not what Jonathan Weisman and Evan Perez write in today's Wall Street Journal:

"The White House is nearing a deal with a bipartisan group of senators to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and pave the way for more detainees to be tried before military commissions, a move that would reverse a signature Obama administration security policy."

Sen. Lindsey Graham is leading the negotiations to close Gitmo; he promises to help secure funding for the Thomson prison in return for a negotiated deal on the handling of civilian trials vs. military commissions. Graham wants KSM before a military commission rather than a civilian trial, but he favors civilian trials for lower level al Qaeda operatives.

It appears Gershon is mistaken when he says there is "no serious plan to close Gitmo."

Andy McCarthy, at The Corner, sees this as disastrous:

The good parts of the deal will be either things we'd have gotten anyway (like no civilian trial for KSM) or unenforceable (like promises that the Obama administration will be more open to using options other than the criminal justice system for top terrorists). The bad parts will be horrific, and no matter what Senator Graham says, he can't do a thing about them: The place or places where the terrorists are held will become targets that we will have to spend tons of money to protect; the tons of money we have already spent to make Gitmo a first-rate, ideally secured facility, will be lost; and, most significantly, the physical presence in the U.S. of the detainees will mean they are unquestionably in the jurisdiction of the federal courts, where judges will be able to say the Constitution requires all sorts of remedies, including release.

McCarthy is, of course correct. The left continues to spout the fiction that Gitmo is this huge recruiting too, but so far has failed to explain to my satisfaction what the recruiting tool was before 9/11. Seems like their recruiting was pretty healthy BEFORE Gitmo was established.

Gershon may be mistaken on his assessment of the closing of Gitmo but he's at least correct on the blunders of Eric Holder. I'm tired of the expression, but it's time for Holder to go under the bus.

Hold the Line on Guantanamo

You've got to wonder what's really going on when Obama seems to cave into the opposition without too much of a fight. One doesn't, for example, see him saying, "Well, okay, health care reform is a bust for this year. The public just won't have it! We'll revisit this issue after we handle the economy." Nope. Not going to happen.

So The Washington Post story that Obama is caving on the New York trials for KSM and friends is a red flag. What's he really up to?

The Post gives us a clue:

If Obama accepts the likely recommendation of his advisers, the White House may be able to secure from Congress the funding and legal authority it needs to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and replace it with a facility within the United States. The administration has failed to meet a self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo.

Ah! So he'll agree to try KSM and friends in the military tribunal system IF he can bring the rest of the terrorists to the United States.

And he's got an ally:

Top Obama advisers have been negotiating with. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) -- a vocal critic of trying the Sept. 11 suspects in civilian court -- in pursuit of a deal that would secure his help in closing Guantanamo. Graham has sought the creation a legal framework that would spell out how the government would detain and try future captives, but an administration official warned that a "grand bargain" is not likely in the immediate future. The official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the talks with Graham have been mostly about "limited issues" involving the Mohammed trial and the future of Guantanamo.

What's Graham going to get out of this?

Andy McCarthy is on to this charade:

The real agenda here is to close Gitmo. That’s the ball to keep your eye on. The Post is trying to soften the opposition to shuttering the detention camp by portraying beleaguered, reasonable Obama as making a great compromise that will exasperate the Left. The idea is to strengthen Sen. Lindsey Graham’s hand in seeking reciprocal compromise from our side.

This, however, is a matter of national security, not horse-trading over a highway bill. You don’t agree to do a stupid thing that endangers the country just because your opposition has magnanimously come off its insistence that you do two stupid things that endanger the country.

If a deal to grant military commissions in exchange for closing Gitmo happens, it is a major win for the Obama Left and an enormous loss for public safety.

Michelle Malkin suggests we continue to call them out. This isn't an issue that merits compromise.

Ed Morrissey sees this issue as having an impact on the health care debate as well:

This may have some impact on the health-care debate as well. There have been suggestions that Obama would sacrifice his progressives and hoodwink the House into passing the Senate bill without seriously attempting to get the fixes House Democrats want made through reconciliation. After this retreat, Obama won’t dare cross the progressives on ObamaCare now — but they may be angry enough to demand a do-over to restore the public option. Just when Obama needed the Left to sit quietly so he could pass something on health care, he will enrage them on a key cause.

In either case, we don't want this lame health care boondoggle and we sure don't want Gitmo graduates on American soil. (And if this health care bill passes, you can bet the Gitmo guys will be getting better health care than the rest of us.)

Stay vigilant. Don't let this administration compromise on national security. As McCarthy said, there's just no reason to do it. Congress wasn't going to approve the funding to close Gitmo or renovate Thomson prison. Nobody in Congress wants THAT vote on their record heading into the midterms.

Hold the line.

(More at Memeorandum)

Why Isn't This Conflict of Interest and Improper?

Dan Foster at The Corner points to Byron York's story in The Washington Examiner regarding the question posed to Holder by Senator Grassley last November about Justice Department attorneys representing Gitmo detainees. Turns out there are a few:

At least nine Obama appointees at the Justice Department have represented or written amicus briefs in support of terrorist detainees, according to Attorney General Eric Holder. At least two of the lawyers continue to work on detainee policy.

Now, could some legal mind (Professor Jacobson, are you there?) explain to me why this isn't conflict of interest?