When Justice Just Is Not

"Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints..." -Mick Jagger,Sympathy For The Devil

"Injustice in the end produces independence" - Voltaire


Well, you can't say I didn't call this one. We no longer live in a country where justice for all means anything.

Hillary Clinton is now officially above the law.

Today FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI would recommend that even though Mrs. Clinton clearly broke the law, she should not face prosecution on criminal charges. And his acrobatics in doing so were something to behold. To summarize, here's what he said:

• He spent the first fifteen minutes or so talking about about how Mrs Clinton broke the law with her private servers, negligently handled classified information including e-mails labeled 'top secret', the highest classification, that she should have known better, that no person in her position should have compromised America's security in that way, that foreign intel services from countries hostile to the U.S. may very likely have hacked her unprotected server.

• That about 800 emails Mrs. Clinton sent to her unprotected private servers contained information that was classified or highly classified at the time they were sent, and another 2000 were up-classified after they were sent. That included eight “Top Secret” chains, 36 with “Secret” information and eight more that were “Confidential.” .

• That the 30,000 work-related emails Mrs. Clinton refused to turn over to the FBI that were deleted illegally by her lawyers on her orders not only violates federal law and the legal agreement Mrs. Clinton signed when she became secretary of state but criminal laws on obstruction of justice

• After spending the first part of his announcement spelling out exactly why Mrs. Clinton should be indicted, Comey dropped the bomb- in spite of her blatant law-breaking, Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, because there's no evidence she intended to compromise national security.

• And to cap it all off, he said that while they will likely recommend criminal prosecution in the future for exactly what Mrs. Clinton did, they won't recommend that Mrs. Clinton be prosecuted.

Let's look at how many hoops Comey was made to jump through here.

For starters, he had to rewrite Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18). Notice what I've emphasized:

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Well, based on what James Comey had to say, Mrs. Clinton blatantly violated federal law here. And we haven't even gotten to the Records Management Act by Federal Agencies, 44 U.S. Code Chapter 31.

She clearly violated § 3101, Records management by agency heads by deleting the e-mails and by, as Huma Abedin admitted under oath, destroying her legally required calendar of meetings and appointments.

§ 3105 - Safeguards, which mandates that the head of a federal agency must establish safeguards against the loss or destruction of federal records, and that 'records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated (accessed by people who shouldn't have them) or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301–3314 of this title.'

And § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records, which speaks for itself.

Mrs. Clinton also likely perjured herself before congress during the Benghazi hearings based on what the FBI director had to say today.

So how did Comey justify saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges? Well, first of all he lied and said he couldn't find any legal precedents. I suppose he never heard of Scooter Libbey, General David Petraeus, Bradley (Chelsea) Manning, Edward Snowden and Jonathan Pollard, just to name a few.

And second, he tried to use an old lawyer's trick. He brought up the supposed lack of intent as a reason not to charge Mrs. Clinton in an attempt to divert us from the actual issue, which was criminal negligence.

If a drunk driver runs into another vehicle and kills or injures someone, obviously he or she never intended to do so. Few if any people do, yet they are prosecuted just the same. The laws I've cited above have nothing to do with intent, but with the gross negligence which even James Comey admitted Hillary Clinton was guilty of. That's why congress criminalized gross negligence when it comes to classified material and other official documents.

And intent? Even if it mattered (which it doesn't in this case), illegally destroying e-mails, putting together illegal private servers in the first place, and as even Comey admitted, failing to turn over a number of e-mails when required to certainly looks like intent, at least in my universe.

And James Comey knows this very well. So why the bizarre performance today? Why not just say that based on his investigation, there was no grounds to prosecute instead of spending a quarter of an hour telling the nation exactly why Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted before telling us he had no intention of recommending that course of action? Besides, shouldn’t the FBI let the prosecutor decide that without tainting their reputation? Why not just turn over the evidence and usurp the Department of Justice's function?

It's really not that difficult to figure out, at least the way I see it.

The fix was obviously in for some time, and James Comey was fully aware of it. I'm not sure what kind of horse's head the Obama Administration and the Clintons put in Comey's bed to get him on board, but it must have been substantial. And to add to that, he was likely told that even if he did recommend prosecution, Loretta Lynch was going to see to it that it never went anywhere. So why destroy himself for nothing?

 

Meanwhile, he probably felt he had to make at least some attempt to try to redeem his own honor and that of the FBI, so he actually conducted an investigation to keep his agents' morale up... and to send a message to the American people that regardless of the decision he was forced to make, Hillary Clinton really was guilty as charged. That, I think, is why he took the time to essentially make the case for indicting her before swallowing the bitter pill at the end. I'm guessing a bit here, but I wouldn't be surprised if that part of Comey's act was not exactly in the script and he might end up resigning after a few months so as not to make it look too obvious.

So the meeting between our Attorney General and Bill Clinton was simply to get the final details and the timing straightened out. And it's no coincidence that two days after her meeting with Mr. Bill, the Justice department filed a motion in federal court seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation,which is supposedly being investigated over all those lucrative speaking fees and huge donations to the Clinton Foundation that came from foreign countries and large corporations who just happened to have business pending at the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was running it.That isn't going to go anywhere either, and never mind that our attorney general met with a potential witness to both investigations. After all, this was a situation where there was a home brew server with classified information in Bill Clinton's basement at the Clinton Foundation. And a back up in somebody's bathroom somewhere.



Needless to say, that investigation of the Clinton Foundation will also fade into the woodwork.

So, where do we go from here?

Mrs. Clinton and her execrable media allies will of course celebrate this as a victory and an exoneration, although even a few of the usual suspects appear to be having some doubts.

As for the other side, I've already heard some of the pious outrage and while I don't disagree with most of it, I have to admit that it surprises me, just a little. We've been ruled by these criminal swine for almost eight years now, and they've amply demonstrated their contempt for us, our country's laws and our Constitution. They no longer even feel the need to attempt to hide it anymore. The Obama Administration is probably the most lawless in our history,and they've gotten away with it countless times, even with 'Republicans' controlling congress. Did anyone expect something different this time? Really?

A lot is going to depend on how the American people react to this, just four months away from an election. Given how common it has become lately to lie to pollsters, we probably won't know until after November when the votes are counted.

There may actually be a silver lining here. It's just possible that enough people may have gotten to the point where they're disgusted enough to no longer even to consider putting this corrupt snake in office. And it's less likely but not impossible that the GOP establishment who have been scheming to sabotage Donald Trump either at the convention or during the campaign are going to finally wake up and realize exactly what a Hillary Clinton presidency is going to be like.

Comey himself gave us a good indication of that during his performance today:

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

The #nevertrumpers and the GOP establishment had better pay close attention, get their brains together and understand that in a Clinton Administration, they're going to be targeted like never before for the least possible 'infraction' of any laws, whether they actually did anything illegal or not.

As for Donald Trump and whomever his running mate is, they now have some fresh, redolent substance in recent public memory behind the label 'Crooked Hillary.' They need to remind the American public about that at every opportunity. We'll soon see if we keep our Republic.

And here's another thought on the matter.

When those in power engage in this any means to an end Alinskyite hustle, they never stop to think of the message it sends, and how it could backfire.

While it has sometimes been imperfectly administered in practice, America has always been based on the ideal that everyone is equal before the law. Take away that expectation and you lay the seeds not just for contempt for the law but for those whom claim to govern legally. And historically, that has led to some unanticipated consequences for the ruling classes.

The Real Story Behind The Clinton-Lynch Meeting

 

Here's the narrative we're being expected to believe...Bill Clinton and Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch just happened to run into each other at the Phoenix Arizona airport and had a friendly little chat for 30 or 40 minutes on AG Lynch's private plane about golf and grand kids.

That didn't pass the smell test with anyone but the most gullible true believers. For one thing, anyone familiar with the security arrangement involved in this sort of thing for ex-presidents and a standing Attorney General knows that this kind of meeting is arranged far in advance. Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch may want the peasants disarmed and helpless, but they have 24-7 well armed security provided for them by the taxpayers wherever they go and whatever they do. Not only that, but even for private planes takeoff has to be coordinated and scheduled with the airport and kept to that schedule unless there's a major emergency or maintenance issue.

And it's also obvious that the agenda for this meeting was also planned in advance. Chatting about grand kids and golf doesn't take 30 or 40 minutes.And heart patients usually don't subject themselves to triple digit temperatures by choice unless it's something vital.

Even more interesting, our Attorney General meeting with Bill Clinton was highly inappropriate for reasons we'll discuss shortly, and both Clinton, as a disbarred lawyer and Lynch knew that. It's also worth noting that the only reason we know about this is because of a reporter working for a local ABC affiliate reported on this. Not only was this initially ignored by the Ready For Hillary media, but the FBI actually made a cordon around the plane and informed everyone that no photos, no pictures,and no cell phones were allowed, according to Christopher Sign of ABC 15 in Phoenix who broke the story.

In other words, Clinton, Lynch and their media allies did their best to keep this a secret meeting and would have succeeded except for one reporter at a local outlet. Why else have the FBI guarding the meeting order everyone not to make any records of the Lynch and Clinton getting together that might leak out?

 

So, what was on that agenda? What were they talking about?

To answer that question, you have to remember that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton go back aways. It was President Clinton whom picked her out of obscurity and made her a federal District Judge in 1999 just before he left office, and the Clintons and Loretta Lynch have known each other for some time...partners in crime, so to speak. To remotely think that the current FBI investigations weren't discussed is the height of naivete' and defies belief.

While we have no way of knowing exactly what was discussed, we can tell a great deal from the aftermath.

One lie being repeated over and over again in the 'ready for Hillary' media, including the New York Times, of course, is that Attorney General Lynch has now experienced a Road to Damascus moment, and that even though of course nothing illegal or improper was done, she really, really regrets having a chat with the former president. Or to put it more truthfully, she's sure sorry she got caught having a secret meeting with her patron.

So, just to show she's on the up and up, to quote pravda-on-the-Hudson, she's said "she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case."

Except that's not what she said at all.

Actually, what Loretta Lynch said is that' I FULLY EXPECT to accept their recommendations.' That can mean anything. She could decide (wink, wink) to simply continue to stonewall. She could, for instance, decide to accept some of the charges more easily defended by the Clintons in court and ignore others, something that could be determined by clandestine meetings with the Clintons and/or their legal team...especially since she will have full access to all the evidence against them in advance.

She will also be in charge of the prosecution, deciding which lawyers become prosecutors and how the case is prosecuted, which could mean a poorly prosecuted case as opposed to one designed to actually convict.

By not recusing herself, she remains in control and is letting us know that a deal has been cut between her and the Clintons...a Supreme Court nominations perhaps, a position as dean at a major law school, or simply cold cash. It could be anything.

Another little tidbit that the media is ignoring is that a mere two days after her secret meeting with Mr. Bill, the Justice department filed a motion in federal court seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation. What's under investigation? All those lucrative speaking fees and huge donations to the Clinton Foundation that came from foreign countries and large corporations who just happened to have business pending at the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was running it. And whose being investigated? Not only Hillary's minions Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, but ex-president Bill Clinton, the head of the Foundation.

Yes, you got that right. We're not just talking about Mrs. Clinton. The head of America's Department of Justice, the chief law enforcement officer in the nation met secretly with bill Clinton, whose also under investigation by the FBI.

So we're talking about this evidence not being submitted until October 2018, about 22 months into Mrs. Clinton's presidency if she's elected.

And even if the motion isn't granted (unlikely since the judge involved is U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, a President Obama appointee), just look at how the State Department has already been stonewalling:

Citizens United has sued for emails between a handful of State Department officials and people at the Clinton Foundation and a consulting firm, Teneo Consulting, which has ties to the Clintons.

Among other errors, State officials said than an initial test looking at just 300 emails, which was used to calculate the amount of time necessary to process the emails, neglected to include keyword searches of the messages. Instead, they only searched the “To” and “From” lines of the messages, which failed to catch many emails.

State Department officials also “inadvertently” labeled some email attachments as irrelevant to the open records request, without checking them to make sure.

No wonder their initial estimate that only 6,000 emails and other documents were exchanged by State Department figures with the Clinton Foundation has now changed to “34,116 potentially responsive documents.”

Any honest attorney general would have appointed a special prosecutor long ago, and certainly would NEVER have met with someone who's under a criminal investigation. That's not what we're dealing with here.

What we'll see is a long period of stalls and legal gymnastics for the next four months until after the election, when Loretta Lynch will either decide that the evidence is 'insufficient to prosecute' or will file a motion of disinclination to prosecute, just like Eric Holder did to protect CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups from being prosecuted for money laundering and material aid to terrorism.

Don't expect much to come of this. The fix is in.

The Clinton E-Mail Scandal And How It Will End

The media are doing their best to keep it very much under the wire, but the Clinton e-mail scandal has been heating up to the point it can't be ignored much longer.

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III just made an absolutely damning  report to the intelligence committees in the House and Senate to the effect that in addition to 1,340 emails designated “classified” stored on her private home brew server, Mrs. Clinton actually had emails on her server that contained intelligence from “special access programs,” which is “a level of classification beyond even ‘top secret’.”

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

'Special Access' is highly restricted to 'need to know' high level persons  because exposure of the intelligence could reveal the source. That could derail an entire method of intel collection, or put an important source in mortal danger. Even the very news that Mrs. Clinton was doing this on an unsecured private server  almost certainly damaged U.S. intelligence collection. Would you provide intel to the U.S. if you found out Mrs. Clinton had been risking your life in this fashion just to pad her corrupt foundation with a few more dishonest dollars, or hide some of her more questionable doings? Would you even remotely consider it?

And yes, the information was definitely hacked.

 Mrs. Clinton at this point is probably  guilty of many breeches of State Department policy as well as outright felonies according to the federal laws covering these matters...for instance, to cite  18 US Code 107:

"Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation Generally: Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. ... and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

There's also 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information and quite possibly 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information.

The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the guilt for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. Maximum sentence is a fine and ten years in prison.

That's especially interesting since (a) it could involve Mrs. Clinton's close associates Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and (b) it's now come out that Mrs. Clinton had a second private server, not the one in Chappaqua, but another satellite server located at the Clinton Family Foundation. Since whatever was on Hillary's server was thus accessible by Bill Clinton and other people at the Clinton Foundation, and since both contained data and documents top secret and higher in classification, whomever accessed this data could likewise be indicted and prosecuted. We also have to wonder whether this satellite server in the Clinton Foundation was used to traffick intel and classified information to foreign powers or other interested customers for 'donations.' Would that surprise anyone, knowing what we know now?

18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees. Given the stonewalling and probable perjury based on Mrs. Clinton's various statements before congressional committees, this could easily apply. Even more damaging, it's now been proven that dozens of senior State Department officials knew about Mrs. Clinton's illegal private server and not only covered up for her but openly lied to groups requesting lawful and legitimate  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) compliance. 

According to this law if it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, that accused can be convicted of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The all important  mens rea (proof of intent) is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.

There's a lot more, but I think you get the picture. I merely want to point out how deep the investigations have already gone and what's been discovered, since the media would rather you didn't know.

So moving on, where is this likely to end up?

As I said before on these pages,the FBI and the Justice Department work for President Obama. That the Justice department under the president's carefully chosen racialist Attorney General Loretta Lynch would certainly  go along in simply ignoring all this. But the FBI is a different matter. Whatever their flaws, the FBI has a culture of being incorruptible, of having no tolerance for lawbreaking no matter who's involved.

James Comey, the current head of the Bureau has a long history of the same sort of ethics. He helped prosecute the Gambino crime family, was the lead prosecutor in the case concerning the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and served as assistant attorney general during the Bush administration. He even stood up to President Bush and was willing to resign after he was pressured as acting Attorney General (John Ashcroft had been hospitalized) to "certify" the legality of certain aspects of the NSA surveillance program at that time.

As bad as this scandal is getting, I'm fairly certain that Comey and the FBI will recommend prosecution to Obama's Attorney General. And I  doubt that letting Mrs Clinton slide on this blatant lawbreaking wouldn't be met by resignations from James Comey and a number of other FBI personnel. That would shine a spotlight on all this that would not benefit Mrs. Clinton's political ambitions at all.

While President Barack Hussein Obama has no love for the Clintons and would undoubtedly giggle uncontrollably at the idea of one or both Clintons doing the perp walk, he likewise has problems with the scenario of her being  prosecuted. Can you imagine what could happen if Mrs. Clinton were indicted and decided to trade immunity for everything she knows about Fast and Furious, Benghazi and numerous other scandals she has to have been privy to? Just imagine if she once heard the president bragging about how he was using the IRS as a political weapon! There may even be things the renowned Clinton opposition research uncovered about Barack Obama as long ago as 2008 that this president would rather the American public remains ignorant about. At this point, he's not facing re-election but has his legacy to consider, and Mrs. Clinton could do quite a bit to destroy that were she so inclined.

But if he has the Department of Justice ignore this, President Obama risks spotlighting this in a way that further tarnishes what is already the worst presidency in U.S. history in a way not even some of the True Believers will be able to stomach. And it also risks reminding the electorate at a crucial time who Hillary Clinton is, to the point that she gets beat like a gong come election time.

But if he allows her to be prosecuted, he's playing with dynamite that could explode in his face painfully as she deals for her freedom. Not only that, but he has to deal with Bernie Sanders as the nominee, who isn't under his control at this point and who would likely get slaughtered in the general election.

What to do?

So I'm going to make a prediction here. President Obama will not prosecute her, but will have a Mob-style sit down and  make a deal with the Clintons. If Mrs. Clinton ends her campaign and maintains omerta, he will issue her a full pardon for any wrongdoing she might have done "in recognition of her long record of dedicated public service." She'll keep her ill-gotten gains and stay out of jail provided she ends her campaign and keeps her mouth shut.

Once she ends her campaign, the Bernie Sanders problem will be dealt with by having Joe Biden declare his candidacy with the full backing of the White House, Hillary's endorsement and the support of the Democrat super-delegates.

Watch and see if that's not how things turn out.

Obama DOJ To Charge Dem Senator Menendez With 'Corruption'

 


Sen. Bob Menendez (D NJ) will be formally charged with corruption by the Obama Justice Department.

Senator Menendez, of course has angered the regime by opposing its policy on Cuba and of course, by being highly critical of the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. He's the con-sponsor of the bi-partisan Kirk-Menendez bill on Iran the president has promised to veto.

When you look at some of the other Congressmen present and former that this president has let get away with murder ( Charlie Rangel, William Jefferson, former Senator John Corzine and some of Harry Reid's highly questionable land deals come to mind, among many others), it's obvious what this is...a political persecution designed to keep the rest of the troops in line.

And of course, to ramp up a media campaign to discredit Senator Menendez, regardless of whether tey can actually proove anything. It's how these people operate.

Is President Obama A Christian? Does He Love America?

 

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani created a press-fueled tempest in a teapot when he raised those issues at a private dinner. As you know, only Democrats and Leftists are entitled to  private conversations and secrecy even the Mafia would envy. And of course, to the freedom to express their opinions  no matter how bat sh*t crazy they are. Rudy Giuliani obviously doesn't qualify for that kind of protection.

Of course the press leaped on this. The current administration and its minions are free to refer to 'right wing Tea Partiers' as  terrorists and to deride a serving US General commanding a combat operation as 'General Betray Us' in the New York Times,  but again, the rule for Democrats and the Left is that you may never question  their patriotism under any circumstances, no matter what they say or do.

Having pretty much struck out trying to smear GOP front runner Governor Scott Walker for not undergoing four years or more of Leftist indoctrination at someplace like Harvard, Yale, Columbia or Princeton, the Obama media decided to grab at another straw and make a point of asking Governor Walker if he thought this president was a Christian.

His quite sensible reply was that he didn't know, and as Byron York pointed out, a fair amount of Americans don't know either. I suppose it all depends on whether you consider Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church with its radical politics and its  anti-Semitic and racialist overtones 'Christian.'  Or whether you're confused about a president who defends Islam and Islamists at every turn while dissing Christianity and standing by and doing nothing while Christians are being  ethnically cleansed from the Middle East by those peaceful Islamists.

But at any rate, the only way to know for sure would be to look inside this president's head and heart, and Walker was astute in simply saying he wasn't going to attempt that.

Now, does this president love America? Again, like the question about Christianity, it all depends on what your definition of loving America is.

In his memoir about his time as Secretary of Defense in the Bush and Obama Administrations, Robert Gates chronicled his struggle to contain his rage as former Democrat Senators and 2008 presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden chuckled to Gates about how their efforts during the second Bush administration to sabotage America's war effort in Iraq and the Surge in particular while our troops were under fire were 'hah hah,just politics, ho ho.' As Gates related, these efforts along with their calculated attempts to insult and emasculate its commander General Petraeus literally cost American lives.



Now again, some people are going to say 'what difference does it make?' Others would be outraged at this and a lot of other things that have happened in this administration.

So you see, it all depends on your point of view.

But walk with me a minute.

Let's say,just for giggles, we elected a president who actually didn't love the country, but whose agenda could more accurately be described in one word - payback.

How would such a president behave?

Would he openly openly defy the Constitution, use government bureaus like the IRS and the EPA to attack people he perceived as his political enemies and devote significant resources to spying indiscriminately on his fellow citizens to a greater degree than any other president in history? Would he violate the separation of powers doctrine with dictatorial 'executive orders' and make a constant show of his contempt for congress?

Would he use rhetoric and take actions deliberately designed to foster division and friction between Americans, especially racial enmity? Would he use his appointees to try and control education and opposing voices in the press?

Would he and the people he surrounded himself with allow our borders to remain unguarded for political reasons, even though that's a severe national security risk?

Would he run up huge debts? Would he waste billions of taxpayer dollars on a totally unnecessary war that provided vast stockpiles of arms to our enemies? Or on pushing through a dysfunctional 'healthcare' program that actually made healthcare less affordable and led to a loss of jobs and cuts in full time jobs and income for many Americans? Would he take steps resulting in higher costs in food prices, fuel and utilities for the average American?

Would he severely downsize our military and our anti-missile defenses? Would he release dangerous terrorist from a secure facility, even though the evidence was clear that a number of these people who'd been freed went right back to terrorist activities? Would he openly protect anti-American groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and its various front groups here in America and abroad?

Would he markedly and openly alienate traditional allies of America while attempting to appease countries that openly declare themselves our outright enemies?

In short, if, say, President Barack Obama didn't care all that much for the America he was elected to lead, if he thought that there was no such thing as 'American exceptionalism', if he thought America needed to be somehow punished for what all his closest associates for decades have told him are America's sins....

What exactly would he be doing differently? And just to add to the mix, it's worth noting President Obama had a model for making America bankrupt, sharia respecting and virtually defenseless.

Again, this all very much depends on what your definition of what loving America is. So I'm sure all of you can answer that question for yourselves, each in his or her own way.

IRS-Gate: Suit Filed For Illegal Destruction of Evidence

Attorney Cleta Mitchell represents Truth The Vote, one of the groups illegally targeted by the IRS. She has filed suit in federal court not only on behalf of the group for the illegal targeting in violation of the law but for serial harassment of True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht by federal law enforcement authorities representing three different federal agencies, which has been documented elsewhere and came up in her testimony to the House Oversight Committee.

 

The latest on this is that Ms. Mitchell has filed a motion calling for advanced discovery to investigate all those 'lost' e-mails. The rules of discovery, for those of you unfamiliar, require both sides to turn over all evidence and a list of witnesses and experts who may be called to opposing counsel prior to trial. Contrary to the world of movies and TV, there are no surprise last minute witnesses or evidence allowed in order to make time for that final love scene or commercial break.

In this particular instance, the federal lawyers are arrogantly denying that until the judge rules on the motions the government has to dismiss the case, any documents and emails in the possession of the defendants don't even constitute evidence.Of course, this also gives them more time to search and destroy anything they want.

 

So Ms. Mitchell cleverly responded with this motion, asking the judge in the case to order the defendants and their lawyers to disclose under oath exactly what they've have done to preserve evidence in the case or to recover any “lost” e-mails and document. She's also asking the court to allow her and a forensic team access to a number of computers and files so that they can conduct their own examinations and investigation, and asked for a court order specifically prohibiting further destruction of evidence. She argues that without that, evidence will continue to be 'lost' or destroyed.

The judge apparently took her motion seriously, a good sign, because a hearing on it is going to be held July 11, next week.

Powerline, who have been on top of this story from day one has another interesting observation that could come in to play. As John Hinderaker writes, federal law mandates that there is is a legal duty to preserve data that may be relevant to any actual or likely lawsuit:

This duty arises from the party’s own knowledge; it is not necessary for a court to tell it not to destroy information, or for an adverse party to make such a request. The fundamental, shocking fact that is emphasized in True the Vote’s brief is this: at the time of Lois Lerner’s hard drive crash in June 2011, the IRS was already under a legal duty to take steps to ensure that information was not lost, and had been under such a duty for nearly a year, at a minimum. I am speaking here only of the normal requirements that are imposed on any party to a lawsuit, or potential lawsuit. Federal law probably imposes a higher duty on federal agencies, but that is a subject for another day.

True the Vote’s brief points out that the first lawsuit alleging discriminatory targeting of conservative groups was filed by a pro-Israel group called Z Street, Inc., on August 25, 2010. On that date, at the very latest, the IRS had a legal duty to take measures to ensure that no emails, correspondence, memoranda, notes, or other evidence of any sort that could be relevant to the case was lost or destroyed. (Congressional investigations, or other information known to the IRS, may have triggered the duty at an earlier date.) Lois Lerner’s communications would have been at the very top of the list of materials that the IRS had a legal duty to go out of its way to preserve.

But, according to IRS representatives who have testified before Congressional committees, the IRS ignored the law. Instead of making sure that relevant information was preserved, the IRS blithely continued erasing back-up email tapes every 90 days. Further, the IRS continued its policy of assigning each employee a ridiculously small space on an email server, and then authorizing employees (like Lois Lerner) to delete at will to keep space open. And, finally, when Lerner’s hard drive crashed ten months after the Z Street case was commenced, the IRS made no effort to preserve it, but rather, by its own account, recycled the hard drive in a business-as-usual manner.

Any private company that conducted itself in this way would be crucified. It happens from time to time, but rather rarely nowadays, as the duty to preserve evidence is well known in the business world. The IRS’s account of its own behavior is, frankly, shocking. I can hardly imagine what a federal judge would do to a party that took no steps to preserve documents, erased backup tapes, allowed employees to delete relevant emails and memos, and “recycled” the crashed hard drive of its principal witness, all while the lawsuit was pending.

What this means is that even if the 'lost' e-mails can't be found (and I find that hard to believe, given how difficult it is to totally destroy digital data) the IRS defendants can be prosecuted for willful negligence and possibly obstruction of justice if intent can be proven. These are felony busts.
And that in itself may loosen a few tongues.

Stay tuned....

It's On - House Forms Select Committee On Benghazi, Trey Gowdy To Chair

Now this looks to be a positive development.

The Benghazi coverup is going to be investigated by a House select committee, with full powers of subpoena and the ability to hire its own special prosecutor.

This will essentially bypass Eric Holder and the corrupt Obama Department of Justice:

The move comes after the revelation of an email from a top Obama national security official, Ben Rhodes, instructing Susan Rice to focus on an anti-Muslim internet video to explain the attacks.

“The new emails this week were the straw that broke the camel’s back,” says the aide. “The Speaker was furious to learn that the administration withheld relevant documents from a congressional subpoena. He’s sick and tired of this evasion and obstruction from the administration, and wants a solution to finally force accountability, get to the truth, and provide justice.”

Now, since this is Boehner, I expected him to put some toothless establishment RINO in charge who would go through the motions. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that none other than Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a staunch conservative and Tea Party favorite is going to head the committee. Gowdy spent six years as a very successful Federal prosecutor, so he has the knowledge, the smarts and the aggressive temperament to make this the Obama Administration's worst nightmare. And he's also close to Chairman Darrel Issa of the House Oversight Committee, which Gowdy used to serve on.

And speaking of which, Issa just subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry to testify before Congress about the department's response to information requests about the attack. Note that Issa didn't just issue an invitation,which is less formal.

"The State Department's response to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack has shown a disturbing disregard for the Department's legal obligations to Congress," Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote in a letter to Kerry.

He added: "Compliance with a subpoena for documents is not a game. Because your Department is failing to meet its legal obligations, I am issuing a new subpoena to compel you to appear before the Committee to answer questions about your agency's response to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack."

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Obama To Spend $100M In Taxpayer Dollars In Stealth Bailout Of Detroit

President Obama has decided to secretly bail out Detroit and make its corrupt pension plan whole at the rest of the nations' expense.Which of course, means he lied about his commitment not to do so.

In order to sneak this past the American people, the regime is labeling this as 'blight remediation,' but the fine print allows the new city manager to shove it into the city's pension funds, which were looted over several decades by Detroit's Democrat politicians and corrupt public employee union bosses.

As the Detroit Free Press reported, the money's coming from a secret $7.6-billion slush fund the Obama Administration established called the the Hardest Hit Fund designed to help those 18 states hardest hit by the real estate collapse. Surprise, surprise, 11 of those 18 states (and the ones getting most of the cash) are either deep Blue enclaves or battle ground states with predominantly black urban Democrat populations. And the 7 of those states that are Red States likewise have significant black populations, like Georgia's urban Democrat stronghold in Atlanta. There's also looks like there might be an interesting correlation here between the areas hardest hit and a population of certain borrowers who received loans from Fannie and Freddie they weren't really qualified for normally based on those sharply reduced, politically correct underwriting standards doesn't there? And while the Democrats who controlled congress after January 2007 fought off any attempts at oversight of Fannie and Freddie during the Bush years.

Michigan is already the recipient of almost half a billion taxpayer dollars, and Detroit already received $320 million of your tax dollars in a separate bailout, so this $100M specifically earmarked for Detroit's pension funds is lagniappe, (a little extra) as they say in N'awlins.

So aside from the fact it's being done in secret without congressional oversight, why is this so outrageous?

First off, because it's racial politics written in big letters and a blatant political bribe to Detroit's public employee unions with the midterms coming on.

Second, because it sets a horrific precedent.Lots of cities whom have been Democrat ruled for decades have underwater pension funds. Looking at what Detroit's getting, what we're looking at is the old 'train pulling' logic..'hey sweetie, you did it for him, ain't I good enough?'

And finally, because of the nature of how Detroit's pension fund was looted. You see, while the politicians and union officials got the biggest , the rest of the pension recipients shared in the swag, receiving a '13th check' every year instead of any profits being re-invested to keep the fund solvent. They received it as what amounts to a political bribe to keep voting the some politicos and union bosses back into power no matter whether the fund did well or poorly.The constant looting of the pension funds was largely covered by simply raising taxes or diverting other revenues into it.

Meanwhile Americans with private pensions and 401K's aren't getting any bailouts and are getting hammered by higher and higher taxes to pay for the excesses of places like Detroit...and the other mismanaged Blue urban strongholds and public employee unions that are going to get in line behind Detroit for their share.

IRS-Gate..All Roads Lead To The Same Cesspool

Today, the House Ways And Means Committee voted along party lines to refer former IRS official Lois Lerner to Attorney General Eric Holder and request him to file criminal charges:

“The Ways and Means Committee, led by Chairman [Dave] Camp [R-Mich.], has conducted a serious and thorough investigation of the IRS, uncovering abuses and criminal acts that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said of the referral. "As I've said, if Lois Lerner continues to refuse to testify, then the House will hold her in contempt. And we will continue to shine the light on the administration's abusive actions and use every tool at our disposal to expose the truth and ensure the American people get the answers they deserve.”

OK, now that you've stopped laughing, what's going on here is a sort of ritual dance. No one seriously believes Holder is actually going to investigate one of his minions for selectively targeting the president's political enemies in something that could very well end up not working out to well for our AG and the president if the truth came to light, which is why they've been stonewalling. No one expects him seriously to file any charges.Let's remember that Eric Holder is the only attorney general in our history to be held in contempt of congress, and he has essentially laughed it off.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was our attorney general himself who talked to Lois Lerner after the nasty stuff hit the fan and worked out a deal from the Regime in exchange for her keeping her mouth shut. That's mere speculation on my part, but there are elements of Holder's work history - shilling for fugitive and Democrat donor Marc Rich, for example during Mr. Bill's final days - that shows he at least is an experienced hand at this kind of thing.

The committee is referring it to Holder because that's process, it's how things are done in DC. Holder can do his own mickey mouse investigation and say he finds no grounds for charges (the most likely scenario, IMO), he can simply ignore the request of the committee or he can appoint a special prosecutor from an office totally controlled by the Department of Justice, since President Clinton got rid of the Independent Prosecutor's office as one of his last tricks he turned in office.

As a sideshow, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa openly accused ranking Democrat member Elijah Cummings of colluding with the Internal Revenue Service in its targeting of the conservative nonprofit group True the Vote.

Cummings, (who deserves one of President Obama's presidential medals of freedom for his service to the Regime in delaying the committee's attempt to perform its legal function) apparently made a special project out of True The Vote.

Issa on Wednesday accused the Maryland Democrat of colluding with the Internal Revenue Service in its targeting of the conservative nonprofit group True the Vote, whose founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, said she received multiple letters from Cummings in 2012 and personal visits from the IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Explosives. Engelbrecht’s True the Vote is one of the many conservative groups that claims to have been improperly targeted by the IRS while it scrutinized the applications of tea-party groups.

In a letter signed by his five subcommittee chairmen, Issa raised the possibility that Cummings coordinated with the IRS, “surreptitiously” contacting the agency to request information about True the Vote.

E-mails unearthed in the course of Issa’s investigation into the IRS’s inappropriate targeting of right-leaning groups show that in January 2013, a member of Cummings’s staff contacted the IRS asking for any publicly available information on True the Vote. The matter was discussed by IRS officials that included Lois Lerner, the former exempt-organizations chief who retired in the wake of the targeting scandal.

The bottom line? It's patently obvious that President Obama used the IRS as his personal hit squad to go after those he perceived as his political enemies.The House can initiate legal proceedings on its own, but going through the courts takes years. Realistically congress has one remedy, the House's “inherent contempt” authority under the Constitution, which could put Lois Lerner in the slammer until 2015 when the new congress sits, after which a new subpoena can be issued to toss her in jail again for another two years if she still refuses to testify.

The nuclear option if that happens is a presidential pardon, which the president can issue any time he feels like it for any reason he wants to.They're almost always issued in a president's last days in office, so as not to affect election prospects ala' Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. But President Barack Hussein Obama can issue a pardon for Lerner, Eric Holder or anyone else he deems necessary if things get hot. And it's solid gold, inviolate.

Normally, the check on presidents pardoning associates of theirs who might have been involved in criminal proceedings is media fallout that generates public outrage and bad PR. Given the state of much of the media today, that won't happen. The media won't even mention that our attorney general and our president aren't exactly neutral when investigating their tools or themselves.

Our Founders envisioned a lot of what a democratic republic would have to face, and made provisions for it. They unfortunately had no idea how dumbed down and dependent on government patronage and welfare a portion of the electorate would become, and they certainly never imagined anyone as corrupt and utterly lawless as President Obama sitting in the Oval Office.They never dreamed that we would someday have an attorney general boasting about how he and the president he served were only going to uphold the laws they felt like enforcing and ignore any others they didn't, based on their political agenda.

They did, however leave us a remedy. It's called impeachment.And if we're unable to at least bring charges and examine them honestly after the blatant way this sort of thing has been foisted upon us,  perhaps we're no longer worthy of the gift our Founders bequeathed to us.

If I were Speaker John Boehner, I'd be filing charges right now, voting on them in the House and forcing Democrats to go on record as voting against them in the House and Senate. Come next January, when there might just be enough senators in office willing to vote for something other than their opwn partisan values, things might be different. But Boehner owes it to the country to at least make an attempt and get the numerous high crimes and misdemeanors of President Obama on the record.

Needless to say, he's not that kind of man and certainly not that kind of Speaker. But we'll see what happens in November.

Just A 'Myth' ? Massive Voter Fraud Discovered In North Carolina’s 2012 Election

 

Well, at least we're beginning to know now how President Obama got re-elected:

The North Carolina State Board of Elections has found thousands of instances of voter fraud in the state, thanks to a 28-state crosscheck of voter rolls. Initial findings suggest widespread election fraud.

• 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.
• 35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.
• 155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.

The Interstate Crosscheck examines 101 million voter records in more than two dozen participating states.

Remember, 22 states did not participate in the Interstate Crosscheck.We could be talking not just about 'double voting',but even triple or quadruple voting, especially in states with no voter ID laws and conveniently loose absentee balloting regulations.

Aside from the above figures, the crosscheck also found that more than 13,000 deceased voters remain on North Carolina’s rolls, and they were able to show that 81 of them 'voted' after they died.

Now you also know why Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder has consistent filed suit using your tax dollars to prevent states from purging their roles.

Does anyone even want to bother betting that at least 90% of the fraudulent votes discovered in North Carolina went Democrat, for President Obama?

Obama Secretly Rewrote Freedom Of Information Act to Exclude Him And All WH Docs

 

It has come to light the President Obama, who promised the most transparent administration history was lying to the American people - again.

On April 15, 2009, a mere four months after he was sworn into office, the president decided to secretly rewrite the Freedom Of Information Act, which is designed to inform the public and provide oversight of various government activities and behavior to keep any of what it called “White House equities” from being released without a White House review:

The rewrite came in an April 15, 2009, memo from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig instructing the executive branch to let White House officials review any documents sought by FOIA requestors that involved "White House equities."

That phrase is nowhere to be found in the FOIA, yet the Obama White House effectively amended the law to create a new exception to justify keeping public documents locked away from the public.

The equities exception is breathtaking in its breadth. As the Greg memo put it, any document request is covered, including "congressional committee requests, GAO requests, judicial subpoenas and FOIA requests."

And it doesn't matter what format the documents happen to be in because, according to Greg, the equities exception "applies to all documents and records, whether in oral, paper, or electronic form, that relate to communications to and from the White House, including preparations for such communications."

This secret rewrite basically stopped federal agencies from answering FOIA requests which might include “White House equities” within the 20 days required by law, and there is no time limit on how long a 'review' might take. It covers whatever the White House says it covers and keeps whatever it wants hidden away as long as the White House wants to.

Since the White House gets to decide for itself what “White House equities” consist of and how long the White House feels like taking to review requests which might possibly include them, what the president and his team have effectively done is to make the FOIA law meaningless. They can label nearly everything as a 'White House Equity' and stonewall and exclude the public and the media forever,or pick a time to sign off on whatever does get released when it's politically advantageous, if at all.

In one case cited by Cause of Action, the response to a request from a Los Angeles Times reporter to the Department of the Interior for "communications between the White House and high-ranking Interior officials on various politically sensitive topics" was delayed at least two years by the equities review.

"Cause of Action is still waiting for documents from 16 federal agencies, with the Department of Treasury having the longest pending request of 202 business days.

"The Department of Energy is a close second at 169 business days. The requests to the Department of Defense and Department of Health and Human Services have been pending for 138 business days," the report said.

By the way, rewriting a portion of existing law secretly like this by the Executive Branch without going through congress is not only highly unethical, it is illegal and unconstitutional. It is a clear violation of President Obama's Oath of Office and de facto grounds for impeachment all by itself.

An actual Speaker of the House who had respect for congress and cared about the Constitution  would make a major public stink, bring charges in the House and submit them to the senate for trial to force the Democrats to vote against such an outright violation of law - if they dared. Unfortunately, John Boehner isn't that kind of Speaker.

Obama And Hollande - Scenes From The Class Struggle

 

President Barack Obama's gala hosting of France's Socialist President François Hollande was a unique moment in an administration that has had a number of them.

Both men make a fetish of being 'men of the people', denouncing those whom they deem fat cats and plutocrats and beating the class warfare drum on the campaign trail about 'income inequality'.

So let's look at how they live and conduct themselves at the people's expense.

There is a perfectly good and functional hall in the White House called the State Dining Room that is specifically designated and designed to host state dinners of this sort. But that, of course, was not good enough for President Obama's Socialist comrade in arms or the rest of their 350 guests feeding at the trough.

 The festivities began with a gala reception in the State Dining Room , accompanied by  a selection of cheeses and hors d'oeuvres along with Maine trout, smoked on gen-u-wine  Maine hardwood.

At huge expense, a huge special heated pavilion was erected on the White House's frigid South Lawn complete with chandeliers and turned into a spring-like scene inspired by Claude Monet's Water Lilies paintings, with quince branches in full bloom, irises, blue agapanthus and lilies. The party,of course,weren't expected to walk in the cold to the feast. They were chauffeured over in special little heated trolleys.

And the menu? The First Lady might make noises about obesity and force schools to take away perfectly healthy lunches their students bring from home in exchange for ill favored skimpy school supplied lunches, but that nonsense stops at the White House,believe me.

Let's peruse the 2500 calorie fair that the President, his fellow class warrior and the rest of their party chowed down on:

 

American  Osetra caviar of course, farm raised in the streams of Illinois as an appetizer, followed by Pennsylvania quail eggs, and 12 different varieties of potatoes. Then on to the salad, served in a terrarium-like bowl, featuring herbs from the White House kitchen garden and honey from the White House's own private beehive.You may have noticed the staggering rise in the price of honey at your supermarket lately that's put it out of the reach of working people without a handy EBT card. Not to worry at Chez Obama! 

The main course followed, specially aged ribeye beef from a farm in northern Colorado accompanied by Jasper Hill Farm blue cheese from Vermont and charred shallots, oyster mushrooms and braised chard accompanied by choice wines from California, Washington State, and an amusing but pricy little chardonnay from northern Virginia, just to add a little local color.

Dessert? Certainmot! Hawaiian chocolate-malted ganache, fudge made from Vermont maple syrup, and puffs of cotton candy dusted with orange zest.There were also a number of hand made sugar roses and fleur-de-lis, the official flowers of the U.S. and France respectively. “We made 38 of each‚that’s more than 1,800 petals,” said Pastry Chef Bill Yosses.

Oh, and entertainment for your dining pleasure..Grammy award winner Mary J. Blige.

The First Lady, of course had yet another new outfit for the party..a Carolina Herrera custom design that costs around $12,000, although the FLOTUS probably paid much less (if anything) because of the advertising and prestige value to Ms. Herrera :



Somehow, I don't remember Eleanor Roosevelt tricked out in high fashion at an affair like this when her fellow Americans were suffering during the Depression, but obviously times have changed.

Oh, and what was the cost to the American people for all this merriment? The White House is coy about releasing figures (in fact, the State Department is still refusing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed seven months ago regarding the costs of an especially pricy  dinner was that held for British Prime Minister David Cameron on March 14, 2012), but a similar gala with a smaller guest list for India's president and without the special heated pavilion cost over $600,000. So I think we can put this one at between $700,000 and $800,000, give or take. In case you're wondering, that works out to well over $2,000 a head for one meal.

You know, I sort of understand this. Under President Obama, the number of Americans on food stamps at the taxpayer's expense has skyrocketed. When you think about it, this is simply another meal on the taxpayer's dime, just a lot more blatant, expensive and over the top.

Actually, President Hollande probably needed a nice night out. His approval ratings back home are the lowest of any modern French president, mostly because of high taxes and his miserable failure on things economic, but also because of a particularly sordid scandal he was involved in after he was caught cheating on his long time 'partner' Valerie Trierweile (marriage? quelle bourgeoisie!) with French actress Julie Gayet, who's about 20 years younger than Monsieur le Président. Hollande and Trierweile split in a particularly nasty public brawl, and that was a bit too much even for the normally tolerant French, who are a bit more conservative in these matters than most Americans realize. Hollande arrived here in the U.S. on his own.Oddly enough, he was seated between the Obamas,separating them.Now, at formal dinners, it's not unusual for a husband and wife to sit separately, so that they can host and hostess guests at different parts of the table. But for them to sit at the same part of the table, separated by the guest of honor...unusual.

During the visit, President Obama pulled a few of those gaffes the media simply shies away from mentioning ala' President Bush's pronunciation of the word 'nuclear'. The first one came during a tour of President Jefferson's home in Monticello with his French counterpart, when the president decided to tour the landscape, something that's normally against protocol. As the president explained to Monsieur Hollande, as president, "I can do whatever I want."

Not exactly a gaffe, but perhaps unwise coming from an increasingly imperious president who had illegally announced he would be delaying the Obamacare mandate for businesses unilaterally. Again. If this was a lil' joke by the president, let's just say I doubt that most of the American people struggling with the mess he's created got the humor.

The second one was a real howler, with the president yesterday in his speech at the White House referencing someone named “Alex” De Tocqueville.

Now, he likely meant Alexis De Tocqueville, the French author of 'Democracy in America' and other works. But no one whom ever actually read his books would refer to him as "Alex". And certainly not this president, considering how critical De Tocqueville was of socialism in his native France. The POTUS should have stuck to referencing works by Marcuse, Alinsky and Cornell West, books he's obviously a lot more familiar with.

Just another one of those little gems like 'corpseman' and 'the fifty seven states' that somehow slip out of the mouth of the person the Obama media keeps informing us is the smartest man ever to be president. Of course, since his college transcripts are a closely guarded secret, one has to wonder.

Now, let's briefly discuss the substantive parts of this coming together of these two class warriors.

In a joint press conference, the president mentioned Syria, of course, which he called a 'crumbling state'. Oddly enough, neither France or America is in a position to do much about it, and since Bashir Assad has already fallen way behind schedule on delivering those chemical weapons to Russia and the Russians don't seem inclined to press him, Syria is likely to remain crumbling a bit longer.

The president also brought up Iran. He mentioned that the United States will maintain existing economic sanctions on Iran while six world powers negotiate a durable nuclear pact with Tehran, which as regular readers of these pages know is a flat out lie. The sanctions to all intents and purposes no longer exist, the president threatened to veto legislation that would have re-established them if Iran doesn't comply with its commitments (and those seem to be changing every day, and not in the West's favor), and as a special bit of irony, France was one of the first countries to run to Tehran seeking trade deals. And I can guarantee you both presidents knew all about that.

In fact, President Obama even obliquely mentioned it, saying that French businessmen who have visited Iran recently should know that “they do so at their own peril right now, because we will come down on them like a ton of bricks” if they violate existing sanctions that the United States enforces.

Except both presidents know full well that there are no existing sanctions really, and certainly none being enforced. The president watered them down from day one and virtually ceased enforcing them months before the agreement that wasn't quite an agreement was agreed upon in Geneva last November.

And the biggest lie during the entire press conference? It's a tough pick, but I'll go with this one, from President Obama: “We are absolutely united on our ultimate goal, which is preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

The exact opposite is true...President Obama and to a slightly lesser extent President Hollande are just  fine with a nuclear armed Iran and have fantasies of some kind of grand bargain with the Ayatollahs that will result in normal relations and containment, provided those pesky Jews in Israel can be dealt with somehow. They're horribly wrong  and it will eventually cost us a great deal in blood and treasure. 

My guess is that because of Hollande and Obama's shared ideology, the president is trying to make France the new Great Britain, with a similar special relationship. After all, he's made it abundantly clear he doesn't care for the UK, even if they're unbelievably slow on the uptake to realize it.

For now, we're treated to the spectacle of two 'socialist' politicos behaving in exactly the way they picture the Evil Rich Plutocrats do. But with this important exception; the people they demonize mostly earned their money honestly, rather than as ticks feasting on the people of their respective nations.

AG Eric Holder Says He Will Resign This Year - And What's Behind It

In a New Yorker interview with Jeffrey Toobin, President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he plans to step down sometime this year.

It was just last November that Holder told CBS that he planned to stay on through President Obama's second term.

Given that we're talking about Eric Holder and this president, a few things come to mind in trying to figure this out.

What's changed in 3 months? And what are the angles involved? And most importantly, who benefits and how?

The first thing twe have to do is flip the telescope a bit. Because of the low key way this was announced, casually to a friendly source, a lot of people are bound to assume that this is Eric Holder's decision. In reality, while they may have worked out the details together this is almost certainly President Obama's decision, especially since just 3 months ago Holder was certain about staying on. Holder serves at the president's pleasure, and every cabinet officer submits an unsigned letter of resignation to the White House upon taking office as standard operating procedure.

There are several reason why President Obama might have wanted Holder out of the picture.

While the media still is doing a decent job of covering up for the regime, the scandals surrounding the Obama Administration are gradually heating up,and we can expect them to heat up even more as the mid terms approach. Holder has been involved with all of them except Benghazi up to his neck, especially in the cover up phase. And he is a direct path to the White House and President Obama, particularly in Fast and Furious and IRS-Gate.

In fact, as I write this, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee led by Rep. Darrell Isa is suing him for civil contempt of congress over Fast and Furious for ignoring a subpoena to obtain internal Justice Department memos the committee requested. And a federal judge has already slapped down the Department of Justice's request to have the lawsuit dismissed.A lot of this material was shielded by President Obama in the most egregious misuse of executive privilege in our history.

Now that the lawsuit is ongoing, there no real reason that Holder can give in court for not complying with the congressional subpoena except taking the Fifth ala' IRS commissioner Lois Lerner. And since this is a civil action, the court can still demand that the material be turned over, with failure to do so being subject to criminal penalties. That material may end up not looking too sanitary once it surfaces, and there's a good chance it might implicate the president, since some of it involves direct interaction between the president and his attorney general, the very basis the president used to claim executive privilege.

Holder and the president may very well have cut a deal wherein Holder chooses the time of his 'retirement' takes the flak, pleads the Fifth and keeps his mouth shut in exchange for a presidential pardon and perhaps some other considerations under the table afterwards.It's a good deal on both sides, since AG Holder has the leverage to be certain the president sticks to his end of it. After all, if Eric Holder were to open up and tell what he undoubtedly knows about this most lawless of administrations, the odds on President Obama finishing his term without being impeached plummet significantly. We're talking Watergate on steroids.

This is exactly how the Clintons dealt with Wade Hubbel and Susan McDougal...'well, you're gonna do a littel time, but if you keep your mouths shut it'll be real easy time in some white collar country club facility, as opposed to the alternative. And when it's appropriate, we'll make sure you get a presidential pardon and there will be a nice somethin' somethin' waiting for you when you get out.'

Another possibility, a remote one but still a possibility is that President Obama ordered Eric Holder to do something like destroying evidence that would have exposed him to direct criminal liability and Holder refused. At which point, the president and Holder had a sit down, Holder was informed that he was 'resigning', and they worked out the details of the actual resignation and the rewards involved for Holder keeping his mouth shut.

That scenario pretty much answers all three questions.

Coverup- White House Picks Obama Partisan To Head 'Probe' Into IRS Tea Party Targeting

 

The Obama Justice Department has finally picked someone to to lead what's supposed to be an investigation into the use of the IRS to suppress conservative political activity and target conservative donors.

And surprise, surprise! It's Barbara Kay Bosserman, a trial lawyer in the Justice Department whose an Obama donor as well as a hardline Obama partisan and Democrat. She's listed as having donated more than $6,000 to the president’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, as well as several hundred dollars to the national Democratic Party.

Needless to say,Reps. Darrell Issa and Regulatory affairs subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan are livid.

“The department has created a startling conflict of interest,” Mr. Issa and Mr. Jordan said in a letter sent Wednesday and reviewed by The Washington Times. “It is unbelievable that the department would choose such an individual to examine the federal government’s systematic targeting and harassment of organizations opposed to the president’s policies.”

No kidding. After it was discovered (after numerous outright lies and stonewalling) that the IRS had been used for partisan purposes to deliberately target conservative groups for delays an denial of 501C status as well as to audit and harass conservative donors, President Obama promised that the FBI and the Justice Department would conduct a full investigation.

Of course, eight months later absolutely nothing's been done and there have been no results, and the FBI and Justice Department are refusing to give him any information at all. In fact, the FBI is actually using the fact that there's supposedly an ongoing investigation gong on as an excuse to refuse to release any of the documents Issa has asked them for.

And to add to this travesty, the Justice Department is claiming that their policies forbid them from considering an employees political affiliation when giving out assignments.If anyone seriously believes that if Barbara Kay Bosserman were a Republican who donated to Romney, she would have had any chance at all of getting the job, you probably still think that if you like your health insurance you can keep it.

Issa and Jordan warned Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that the refusal FBI to cooperate could rise “to the level of criminal obstruction” of Congress’. oversight responsibilities. In response, the Justice Department promised to at least brief congressional investigators on the status of the FBI investigation, but then refused to follow through.

A good example of the4 level of IRS corruption we're talking about here is a brief response to Rep. Issa concerning a different letter by Stephen D. Kelly, assistant director of the FBI’s office of congressional affairs:

Catherine Engelbrecht, a chief organizer of King Street Patriots, said she felt the government was targeting her after the FBI made repeated inquiries about someone who attended a King Street Patriots meeting.

In its letter to Mr. Issa, the FBI said it contacted the King Street Patriots after receiving a complaint in 2010 that a member of the group had said he wanted to start a revolution and had visited a firing range.

Mr. Kelly said FBI agents checked with the group, which said the man attended a training session but was asked to leave. Mr. Kelly said the group provided an address the man had given, but that address turned out to be false. When the FBI ultimately tracked down the man, he “indicated that his remarks were made in jest.”

“The King Street Patriots were questioned concerning their limited relationship with the individual in question,” Mr. Kelly said in the FBI letter.

But that doesn’t jibe with Ms. Engelbrecht’s recollection, nor with the paper record that was released. In a heavily redacted copy of one of the FBI’s contact reports, which Ms. Engelbrecht obtained, the FBI makes no mention of the individual Mr. Kelly said the agency was investigating. Instead, the report lists the contact as part of “community outreach.”

Ms. Engelbrecht said the FBI made a half-dozen inquiries over the course of a year. She said she also fielded inquiries at her business from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; faced an audit by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of Engelbrecht Manufacturing; and underwent an IRS audit of her personal tax returns.

She's by no means the only one.

Rep. Issa and his colleagues in the House are never going to get a straight answer on anything from the Obama Administration.They need to get the Select Committee going and appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate this and the myriad other scandals swarming around the Obama White House like flies around manure.

Otherwise, nothings going to happen.

When The Rule Of Law means Nothing

Imagine you're a judge ruling on an immigration case.

The illegal alien in front of you got into America originally using a student visa, although he apparently never attended classes or got a degree. Nor did he leave when the visa expired, as the law required.

He was actually ordered deported twice, once in in 1986 and again in 1989, appealed his deportation and then lost his appeal in 1992...after which he simply skipped out and remained in America.

The authorities caught up with him when he was arrested for drunken driven in 2011, with a blood alcohol reading of almost double the legal limit in his home state, to which he pleaded no contest. As an illegal alien, he of course was not allowed to have a legal driver's license according to the laws in his state, but he had one in his possession, about which more later. He does not have occupational skills vital to the U.S.

How would you rule? If you're US Immigration Judge Leonard I. Shapiro, you give him an 'attaboy' and a green card.

Oh, there is one major mitigating factor in all this, one that trumps all the others. The illegal alien's name just happens to be Onyango Obama, the paternal uncle of our current president. And the judge is a loyal Democrat donor and a Clinton appointee.

Somehow, I doubt that Judge Shapiro would have been quite so lenient if the defendant's name was, say, Ramirez and lacked any high power connections.

In fact, Onyango Obama,who works in a liquor store in Framingham Massachusetts seems to have been surrounded for some time by what the Brits refer to as grace and favor, a euphemism for royal protection or patronage.

Back when Mr.Obama was originally picked up for drunk driving, he was denied bail and kept in jail based on a detaining order from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials who were starting proceedings to deport him back to Kenya.After his arrest, one of the first things he reportedly said to the arresting officers was, “I think I will call the White House.” Of course,people say all kinds of things when they're drunk, so it's not surprising that Onyango Obama testified today before Judge Shapiro he didn't remember saying that.

Of course.But if he did, it apparently had an effect.

Mysteriously, that ICE detaining order was voided suddenly and Onyango was released. But his driver's license (which remember, he obtained illegally) was ordered surrendered and his right to drive suspended for 45 days as part of his plea bargain, which means that Mr. Obama must have been guilty of doing something fairly serious behind the wheel since it was a first offense, or at least the first time he was caught at it.

That court order was mysteriously voided too, and Onyango was quickly granted a hardship driver's license by the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles just a week after he lost his license, in order to drive to his job at the liquor store. Again, no one questioned the fact that he wasn't supposed to be legally driving in the first place!

In court, Judge Shapiro referred to Onyango Obama as a gentleman, a good neighbor, who paid his taxes, and met the criteria for legal permanent residency, AKA a green card.

But you know, there are an awful lot of people like that who haven't repeatedly ignored deportation orders, been caught drunk driving or using an illegal drivers license, which is in itself a felony in many jurisdictions and a high level misdemeanor in almost all of them I'm aware of.

And yet, they've been deported. Because they lack the connections Onyango Obama was able to call on.

Those people who refer to themselves as 'immigrant's rights activists' ought to take a look at that, especially since a lot of them voted for Barack Obama.

When the rule of law is so obviously ignored and flouted, it helps none and ultimately destroys all.

No Bid Contract For ObamaCare Website Was Given To Michelle Obama's Pal And Sorority Sister

There's an interesting thing that's surfaced regarding the disastrous $678 million ObamaCare website.

The company that built it, CGI Federal received a no bid contract to build the site, even though four other companies submitted bids which were never reviewed. Only CGI’s bid was considered.

And wouldn't you know it, there are a couple of other interesting coincidences.

As the Daily Caller reported, Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is the senior vice president at CGI Federal...and not only a classmate and friend of the First Lady, who graduated from Princeton the same year, but a sister at the all black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha and a fellow member of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.

And to add to the mix, there's George Schindler, president of CGI, who became an Obama Campaign donor after CGI won the lucrative contract.

Even more interesting, there are rumors that CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. PAC – CGI Group’s political action group that donates to the campaigns - made a significant swing in donations to Democrats at around the same time.

Now, no bid contracts have come up before. Democrats threw a huge tantrum over no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton for services they performed in Iraq because of former Vice Presidnt Dick Cheney's past employment with them. Those services included saving Iraq's oil wells after Saddam Hussein set them on fire after we invaded.

The difference was that for most of the work Halliburton performed in Iraq, they were the only game in town and no other bids were submitted. Few companies had the expertise and/or the equipment to do what Halliburton contracted to do...observers who credited Halliburton with saving Iraq's oil wells while avoiding an ecological disaster characterized it as a miracle. Not only that, but few if any competitors were willing to send their equipment and employees into a war zone or pony up for the huge insurance costs involved.

What happened with CGI was very different, with four other companies submitting bids that were never even looked at.

It's the Chicago way...and always done using other people's money.