UPDATE: I've had friends from Illinois tell me they have seen these before. They are Greater Chicagoland Democratic Voting Machines.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Detaining US citizens: How did we get here?
The US Senate is pushing to give the military the option of indefinitely detaining US citizens without trial.
Rana tells Al Jazeera that these provisions are merely the latest round in a long battle between Congress, the executive branch, and rights activists. On the executive branch versus civil liberties: "One of the positions in the legal community, for example, around the assassination of [Anwar] Al Awlaki, is that this is a constitutional violation.
For example, various officials in speeches and statements have implied that the battlefield extends beyond Afghanistan or Iraq and indeed may be global. If an individual is suspected of engaging in terrorism but is in a friendly or non-hostile country - such as Yemen - that still would count as the battlefield. So the executive branch is already defending the idea of the world as a battlefield. They're also already defending the idea that you can extinguish citizen rights in various places if someone is suspected of being a terrorist. So, for example, Al Awlaki was a US citizen, and the claim is that you can engage in a targeted assassination even of a US citizen that contests whether or not he or she is a suspected terrorist. There are these practices on the ground that have been backed up by a series of Executive Branch statements, legal opinions, speeches, et cetera. And the thing that's really telling about the current climate in the US, is that there has been very little judicial pushback and very little popular or political pushback. So, for example, in the context of Al Awlaki, his family attempted to raise the legality of the fact that he was on a targeted assassination list last December in a case before the Federal court, and that case was dismissed on 'justiciability' grounds, specifically that [Al Awlaki's] father didn't have standing to sue on his son's behalf. Although the decision never reached the merits of the case, the judge also seemed to indicate that on the merits he would have sided with the Obama administration under the 'state secret privilege'. The courts were unwilling to address the underlying claims that were being presented, to there are questionable practices that are being pursued, but there hasn't been much institutional or political pushback." Codification of rights violations "The concern, potentially, with codification [of indefinite detentions without trial] is a longstanding debate on whether or not it's better for emergency practices to be discretionary - in other words, they're being pursued unilaterally by the Executive Branch - or to actually be codified. The claim about the value of practices being codified is that if these practices get codified, they're under some form of statute, then there's some process that attaches to it, there's some clarity about what the various institutional actors can and cannot do. The critique on the other side is if what you're codifying, if the statues are giving legal imprimatur, the Congress' stamp that we already think of as deeply problematic because they contradict civil liberties and civil libertarian goals - then, in a sense, the process can be quite coercive. There's nothing about having a codified framework that makes it less likely to infringe on rights. Think comparatively. A place like Egypt…where you have emergency laws that create an infrastructure of authoritarian rule. Just because it exists in the law, it doesn't mean that it necessarily going to be rights-protective. These are two problematic options. One option is discretionary power as articulated by the executive branch, but with very little institutional pushback from the judiciary or the public at large, or new statutory frameworks that validate these processes as articulated by Congress but that are themselves quite coercive. Manipulation of case law "The Hamdi case [Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004] where you had a US citizen of Saudi decent, who was captured on the [Afghan] battlefield by the Northern Alliance and turned over to US custody - he was initially sent to Guantanamo before they realised he was a US citizen, and then he was imprisoned in a military brig in South Carolina. The legality of his detention ended up going all the way to the Supreme Court. … the opinion by Justice O'Connor, which became the law of the case, is that you can detain even a US citizen as an enemy combatant, and that detention can be for the duration of hostilities. But there have to be certain procedural safeguards that are provided to the individual that's being detained. Now, O'Connor, when she wrote that opinion, when she was talking about the duration of hostilities, she was actually attempting to limit or constrain - though not ultimately successfully - the framework that had been applied by the Bush administration. Because the Bush administration's framework was that the war on terror is a global war, and that it's going to last indefinitely, perhaps forever. And she [O'Connor] was trying to focus on the fact that, no, the battlefield is Afghanistan, and the reason that this person can be detained is because there's an authorisation for the use of military force that allows an individual to be picked up in Afghanistan. And that detention lasts as long as there are extensive military operations in Afghanistan. Now, what we've seen since then is that her language was still not specified enough, like when do military operations in Afghanistan end? We've been involved in various phases in war there for now a decade and so there is still the implication that hostilities can be long-standing and permanent. And the way that both administrations [Bush and Obama] have interpreted that language is by using the language from the Hamdi case to essentially justify near-permanent detention, because hostilities are endless. What you see in the [NDAA] bill is the effort to use phrases from cases in order to justify the practice, but to strip out in various ways the meaning of the phrase that might have limited the reach of detention powers." | ||
Source:
Al Jazeera
See original article here ____________________________________________________________________________________\ |
Friday, December 16, 2011
Indefinite Military Detention Measure Passes On Bill Of Rights Day
WASHINGTON -- The Senate passed a defense bill Thursday that authorizes indefinite detentions of American terrorism suspects, coincidentally acting on the controversial measure on the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
The bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, passed 86 to 13 and is expected to be signed quickly by President Obama, who withdrew a veto threat against the bill Wednesday. Six Democrats, six Republicans and one independent opposed the bill.
Though the legislation passed overwhelmingly, several senators argued that it was threatening fundamental provisions of the Bill of Rights, which is celebrated every Dec. 15.
"We as Americans have a right to a speedy trial, not indefinite detention," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). "We as Americans have a right to a jury of our peers, which I would argue is ... not enlisted or military personnel sitting in a jury. You cannot search our businesses or place of business or our homes without probable cause under the Bill of Rights."
"You cannot be deprived of your freedom or your property without due process of law, and that, I would say, is not indefinite detention," added Kirk, who voted for the bill. "I would actually argue that no statute and no Senate and no House can take these rights away from you."
The 13 senators who voted against the bill were Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).
Supporters of the bill argued that current U.S. law is a combination of rulings and precedents that already allow indefinite detention of Americans. But they say that granting the military explicit authority to investigate and detain terrorism suspects -- including Americans -- is vital to ensuring the nation can keep up with an adaptable and changing enemy threat.
"This provision would for the first time in American history require our military to take custody of certain terrorism suspects in the United States," said Durbin, who was especially concerned with two sections of the bill -- 1021 and 1022 -- and voted "no."
He argued -- citing FBI Director Robert Mueller's opposition to the provisions -- that there was no reason to mess with a system that has worked well since Sept. 11, 2001.
"Since 9/11 our counterterrorism professionals have prevented another attack on the United States, and more than 400 terrorists have successfully been prosecuted and convicted -- prosecuted and convicted -- in federal court," Durbin said. "Why do we want to change this system when it's working so well to keep America safe? The fact that these detainee provisions have caused so many disagreements and such heated debate demonstrates the danger of enacting them into law."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who added an amendment to the bill that specifies the resulting measure would not affect current law regarding citizens, argued that her provision provides protection for Americans.
Nevertheless, in voting for the bill, she also proposed a new bill that she, Durbin, Kirk and others intend to pursue later in hopes of making her interpretation the law.
"I strongly believe that constitutional due process requires that United States citizens apprehended in the United States should never be held in indefinite detention," Feinstein said. "That is what this legislation would accomplish."
Feinstein offered a similar amendment during earlier debate over the $662 billion defense bill, and it failed. It was not clear that this measure would do any better, although she noted that it built on a law signed in 1971 by President Nixon meant to curb abuses such as the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II.
The bill requires military treatment for foreign terrorism suspects. Defenders of the bill have pointed to one part of the provisions that say U.S. citizens are "exempted" from the requirement to be detained by the military, but legal scholars note that even though that detention is not required, it is allowed.
President Obama had threatened to veto the measure. But after provisions were added that gave him the final say over which suspects stay in military custody, he relented. Those provisions also ensured that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies would still be permitted to investigate and interrogate terrorist suspects. Mueller has called the provisions insufficient, warning that they will create bureaucratic roadblocks in the midst of vital investigations.
Obama could sign sign the bill as soon as Friday.
Civil liberties groups were infuriated that Obama retreated from the veto threat, and called on him to reconsider.
"The NDAA enshrines the war paradigm that has eroded the United States' human rights record and served it so poorly over the past decade as the country's primary counterterrorism tool," said Tom Parker, policy director of Amnesty International USA. "In doing so, the NDAA provides a framework for 'normalizing' indefinite detention and making Guantanamo a permanent feature of American life," he said, referring to a restriction in the measure on closing the Cuba prison for terror suspects.
"By withdrawing his threat to veto the NDAA, President Obama has abandoned yet another principled position with little or nothing to show for it," Parker said. "Amnesty International is appalled -- but regrettably not surprised."
Click here for original article
Michael McAuliff covers politics and Congress for the Huffington Post
Thursday, December 8, 2011
These 8 minutes best summarize Mr. Holder's entire day of testimony
The video link below portrays "in a nutshell" problems with the Fast and Furious program from it's inception to the present day (please scroll down)....
Today President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder went before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions regarding the botched ‘Fast and Furious’ program that allowed illegal firearms sales wound up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Florida Congresswoman Sandy Adams completely tore into Holder, demanding ‘yes or no’ answers to her questions, and as expected, Holder dodged the questions. My description does not do this video justice. Must watch video!
For those not familar with CALEA public safety standards mentioned in this discussion, please follow this link >> CLICK HERE <<
Click here for original article
Holder Threatened With Impeachment, Contempt in Fast and Furious Probe
Attorney General Eric Holder admitted on Thursday that e-mails from his computer were withheld from a congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, angering lawmakers who threatened the nation’s top cop with impeachment and contempt charges.
“These are materials we have not and will not produce,” Holder testified during the combative day-long hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.) compared Holder to disgraced Attorney General John Mitchell of Watergate infamy, as he threatened to bring contempt charges against him for refusing to divulge the documents.
“Have you no shame?” Holder snapped at Issa, likening the questioning to Sen. Joe McCarthy’s hearings held to expose Communists in the '50s.
Issa criticized Holder for dodging any blame in the operation’s failure, and demanded that everyone implicated in the matter be terminated.
“I have no confidence in a President who has full confidence in an attorney general who has in fact not terminated,” or reprimanded, department officials involved, Issa said.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R.-Wis.) suggested impeachment is lawmakers' only remaining option for Holder if he continues to withhold information. Still Holder insisted he knew nothing about Fast and Furious until months after the death of a federal agent.
“The wagons down the street are in a pretty tight circle, Mr. Attorney General,” Sensenbrenner said. “The American people need the truth. They haven’t gotten the truth from what has been coming out of the Justice Department in the last year, and they are relying on Congress to get the truth. The answers that you have given so far, are basically saying somebody else did it.”
“The thing is, if we don’t get to the bottom of this, and that requires your assistance on that, there is only one alternative that Congress has. And it is called impeachment,” Sensenbrenner said.
Nearly 50 Republican lawmakers have called for Holder’s resignation because of Fast and Furious, an operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that promoted the sale of guns in an effort to track the weapons to Mexican drug cartels. However, government officials lost track of some 2,000 weapons, and the operation was canceled after two guns were used in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
“I have no intention of resigning,” Holder told the panel. “I’m the attorney general who put an end to these misguided tactics in Fast and Furious when I found out about them.”
At the heart of the congressional investigation is an attempt to determine exactly when Holder and other top government officials first learned about the operation that began in 2009 and ended after Terry’s death in December 2010, and whether there has been a coverup of that knowledge.
Holder told lawmakers during a May hearing that he was not informed about the operation until a few weeks prior, but said yesterday that he asked the Justice Department’s inspector general in February to investigate the matter.
“A couple of months might have been more precise, but a couple of weeks is still accurate,” Holder said.
Numerous murders in Mexico have been linked to the guns, the sales of which were sanctioned by federal officials through U.S. dealers, and Holder predicted that more deaths are likely.
“Although the Department has taken steps to ensure that such tactics are never used again, it is an unfortunate reality that we will continue to feel the effects of this flawed operation for years to come,” Holder said. “Guns lost during this operation will continue to show up at crime scenes on both sides of the border.”
Holder told the panel that there has been an indictment in the murder of Terry, but that it remains sealed, and he declined to discuss it further.
Holder disputed accusations that a top aide deliberately lied in a letter to Congress that the gun sales were sanctioned, and the weapons were allowed to “walk” across the border to Mexico.
“Tell me, what’s the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?” Sensenbrenner asked. “Obviously there have been statements so misleading that a letter had to be withdrawn.”
Responded Holder: “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind, and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie. The information that was provided by the Feb. 4 letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.”
Republican lawmakers also criticized the agency for using the tragedy and the sanctioned sale of guns to build a case for tracking the purchases of all long guns sold in the U.S., which CBS News revealed Wednesday through e-mails they obtained from the ATF.
“You ought not to use your screwup as a basis to extend your authority,” said Rep. Dan Lungren (R.-Calif.).
Holder defended the action as a lesson learned from Fast and Furious that the agency lacked “effective enforcement tools” to stem the flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico.
“Going forward, I hope that we can work together to provide law enforcement agents with the tools they desperately need to protect the country and ensure their own safety,” Holder said. “For their sake, we cannot afford to allow the tragic mistakes of Operation Fast and Furious to become a political sideshow or a series of media opportunities.”
Numerous Democratic lawmakers say the registration of long guns is a reasonable measure, and have told Holder they support his efforts.
Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court. Follow Audrey on Twitter and Facebook.
Holder: "Nobody at the DOJ has lied"
Attorney General Eric Holder denied that anybody at the Department of Justice lied about the Fast and Furious program that allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug lords, even though he admitted that the DOJ sent inaccurate information to Congress.
Last week, the DOJ took the rare step of formally withdrawing a letter it sent to Congress in February that falsely claimed the program being executed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives did not allow guns to "walk" into Mexico.
Confronted about this by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., Holder defended the DOJ.
"Nobody at the Justice Department has lied," Holder insisted.
When Sensenbrenner pressed Holder on the distinction between lying and misleading Congress, Holder said it was a matter of a person's "state of mind."
Holder said that when DOJ officials provided inaccurate information to Congress, they didn't know at the time that it was inaccurate.
UPDATE: Here's the video. Holder starts speaking around the 1:38 mark.
For those of you who are time deprived, here's the transcript:
This morning on Capitol Hill, Attorney General Eric Holder was asked whether he lied to Congress about the Fast & Furious gun-running scandal:
Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked Holder: “Tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”
Holder's response is a bit Clintonian. “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie," Holder said. "The information that was provided by the February 4th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.”
Original Articles are found here and here
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations
What many suspected, now confirmed by Facts & Evidence gathered via a CBS News investigative reporter:
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."
More Fast and Furious coverage:
Memos contradict Holder on Fast and Furious
Agent: I was ordered to let guns "walk" into Mexico
Gunwalking scandal uncovered at ATF
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."
This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."
The Gun Dealers' Quandary
Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.
Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.
Read the email
In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."
Read the email
ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."
Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.
"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country."
"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."
The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.
The "Demand Letter 3" Debate
The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.
Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.
On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs."
Reaction
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."
On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.
"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.
Sharyl Attkisson
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."
More Fast and Furious coverage:
Memos contradict Holder on Fast and Furious
Agent: I was ordered to let guns "walk" into Mexico
Gunwalking scandal uncovered at ATF
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."
This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."
The Gun Dealers' Quandary
Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.
Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.
Read the email
In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."
Read the email
ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."
Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.
"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country."
"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."
The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.
The "Demand Letter 3" Debate
The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.
Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.
On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs."
Reaction
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."
On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.
"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.
Sharyl
Attkisson is a CBS News investigative correspondent based in
Washington. All of her stories, videos and blogs are available here.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Islamist Extremeists - Arab Spring's First Flower Sprouts in Egypt
Muslim Brotherhood Takes Elections by Storm
By Gavriel Queenann
First Publish: 12/1/2011, 7:19 PM
Islamist parties are expected to control Cairo's parliament by the spring with the Muslim Brotherhood projected to be in the driver's seat
Judges overseeing the vote count in Egypt's parliamentary elections say Islamist parties have won a majority of the contested seats in the first round. The judges spoke on condition of anonymity because official results are expected to be released later Thursday.
They say the Muslim Brotherhood could take 45 percent of the seats up for grabs. The liberal Egyptian bloc coalition and the ultra-fundamentalist Nour party are competing for second place.
Together, Islamist parties are expected to control a majority of parliamentary seats by March. This week's vote was the first of six stages of parliamentary elections that will last until then.
Continued success by Islamists will allow them to give Cairo's government and constitution a decidedly Islamist character. It could also lead Cairo to shift away from the West towards the Iranian axis.
It will also diminish the influence of Cairo’s caretaker junta, which has sought to maintain the Mubarak-era status quo and keep US foreign aid dollars – running into the billions per annum – flowing.
Analysts say Islamists may also seek to annul the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, which could prompt Israel to seize the Sinai Peninsula for the fourth time in its history to create a strategic buffer zone.
After reaching the Suez Canal in 1967 and controlling the Sinai for twelve years,, Israel ceded Sinai to Egypt under the 1979 treaty on condition it remains demilitarized.
The Muslim Brotherhood, which birthed the virulently anti-Israel Hamas terror militia, might also seek to effectively annex Gaza. Should Hamas be triumphant in future PA elections, they would also gain a foothold in Judea and Samaria.
They say the Muslim Brotherhood could take 45 percent of the seats up for grabs. The liberal Egyptian bloc coalition and the ultra-fundamentalist Nour party are competing for second place.
Together, Islamist parties are expected to control a majority of parliamentary seats by March. This week's vote was the first of six stages of parliamentary elections that will last until then.
Continued success by Islamists will allow them to give Cairo's government and constitution a decidedly Islamist character. It could also lead Cairo to shift away from the West towards the Iranian axis.
It will also diminish the influence of Cairo’s caretaker junta, which has sought to maintain the Mubarak-era status quo and keep US foreign aid dollars – running into the billions per annum – flowing.
Analysts say Islamists may also seek to annul the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, which could prompt Israel to seize the Sinai Peninsula for the fourth time in its history to create a strategic buffer zone.
After reaching the Suez Canal in 1967 and controlling the Sinai for twelve years,, Israel ceded Sinai to Egypt under the 1979 treaty on condition it remains demilitarized.
The Muslim Brotherhood, which birthed the virulently anti-Israel Hamas terror militia, might also seek to effectively annex Gaza. Should Hamas be triumphant in future PA elections, they would also gain a foothold in Judea and Samaria.
Original Article Link Follows:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150311#.TtfbHoR0r8B
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
‘Stop This’: Eric Holder Scolds Reporter for Asking About Calls for His Resignation
Attorney General Eric Holder lashed out at a reporter Tuesday for asking about growing calls for his resignation for his connection to the botched Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal, telling him to stop “this.”
Holder, who admitted during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month that the operation was “flawed,” accused the Daily Caller reporter of being “behind” calls for him to step down.
“You guys need to — you guys need to stop this. There‘s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it,” Holder said.
According to the Daily Caller, a reporter with the online news organization had approached the attorney general after a speech to ask about “the growing chorus of federal legislators demanding his resignation.“ Holder spoke ”sternly” to the reporter, then walked away without answering the question.
But the left-leaning organization Media Matters defended Holder’s exchange with the Daily Caller, saying he was right in asserting that it’s the news organization calling for his resignation:
“Holder is right: This isn’t a grassroots movement of conservatives calling for Holder to step down, it’s a concerted effort by a supposed media organization to push him out.The Daily Caller has extensively covered the fall out from Operation Fast and Furious, including those who say Holder should resign. A search of the organization’s site with the words “Eric Holder” and “resign” returns 89 articles from the past month alone.
By the Daily Caller’s count, one senator, 52 congressmen, three presidential candidates and two sitting governors have said the attorney general needs to leave office.
Click here for original posting:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/stop-this-eric-holder-scolds-reporter-for-asking-about-calls-for-his-resignation/#comments
Obama Admin Seals Records of Murdered Border Patrol Agent Implicated in Fast and Furious
Published on The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com)
Mark Hemingway
November 30, 2011 11:45 AM
And to think that Attorney General Eric Holder is getting testy about congressional calls for his resignation. After all, the Justice Department has nothing to hide, right?:
The Obama Administration has abruptly sealed court records containing alarming details of how Mexican drug smugglers murdered a U.S. Border patrol agent with a gun connected to a failed federal experiment that allowed firearms to be smuggled into Mexico.Link via Judicial Watch. The murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent is related to the Justice Department willingly turning over thousands of guns to Mexican criminal gangs, and Obama administration is hiding information about his death from the public. Amazing.
This means information will now be kept from the public as well as the media. Could this be a cover-up on the part of the “most transparent” administration in history? After all, the rifle used to kill the federal agent (Brian Terry) last December in Arizona’s Peck Canyon was part of the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the disastrous scheme allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Leading senators: Kagan may have to recuse herself from health case
Top Republican senators said late Friday the Justice Department has been stonewalling their request for more information on Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, and said her previous work as solicitor general "may satisfy both requirements for recusal" from the upcoming health-care case.
The senators, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, are demanding Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. comply with requests for more documents about Justice Kagan's role in planning the administration's defense, and said unless he provides the information it could undermine confidence in the court's eventual ruling on the case.
"President Obama chose to nominate a member of his administration to the Supreme Court knowing it was likely that, if confirmed, she would be in a position to rule on his signature domestic policy achievement," said the four senators, who also included Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona; Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah.
The Supreme Court announced early this week that it would hear a challenge to the health-care law, which Mr. Obama signed last year. Questions have floated for months over whether Justice Kagan could rule impartially in the case. She was solicitor general at the time the law passed, and acknowledged during her confirmation hearing that she attended at least one meeting where litigation was discussed.
Justice Kagan said at the time her role was not "substantial," but the senators said that's irrelevant to the law. They said the law requires recusal if a government official participated in any matter that is the subject of litigation.
The senators also pointed to emails that suggest Justice Kagan was kept in the loop on discussions over how to defend the law. The letter was released to the press late Friday evening. A message left seeking comment from the Justice Department wasn't immediately returned.
During her confirmation hearing Justice Kagan told senators while she attended a meeting, she had no role in crafting a response to the lawsuits. She declined to commit at the time to recusing herself.
> In addition to Justice Kagan, Justice Clarence Thomas ha come under fire from liberal groups who say he should recuse himself from the case because of his wife's financial ties to groups that oppose the health care law.
"Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household's financial gain through your spouse's activities and your role as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court," dozens of Democrats said in a letter to Justice Thomas earlier this year. "We urge you to recuse yourself from this case.
If the U.S. Supreme Court's decision is to be viewed as legitimate by the American people, this is the only correct path."
Each justice participated in the court's decision Monday to hear the health care case, though that doesn't rule out a future recusal.
Still, law experts said they doubted either would withdraw from the case, and said from the evidence so far, there is no reason why either should.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Solyndra: Energy Dept. pushed firm to keep layoffs quiet until after midterms
By Carol D. Leonnig and Joe Stephens,
The Obama administration urged officers of the struggling solar company Solyndra to postpone announcing planned layoffs until after the November 2010 midterm elections, newly released e-mails show.Solyndra, the now-shuttered California company, had been a poster child of President Obama’s initiative to invest in clean energies and received the administration’s first energy loan of $535 million. But a year ago, in October 2010, the solar panel manufacturer was quickly running out of money and had warned the Energy
Department it would need emergency cash to avoid having to shut down.
The new e-mails about the layoff announcement were released Tuesday morning as part of a House Energy and Commerce committee memo, provided in advance of Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s scheduled testimony before the investigative committee Thursday.
Solyndra’s chief executive warned the Energy Department on Oct. 25, 2010, that he intended to announce worker layoffs Oct. 28. He said he was spurred by numerous calls from reporters and potential investors about rumors the firm was in financial trouble and was planning to lay off workers and close one of its two plants.
But in an Oct. 30, 2010, e-mail, advisers to Solyndra’s primary investor, Argonaut Equity, explain that the Energy Department had strongly urged the company to put off the layoff announcement until Nov. 3. The midterm elections were held Nov. 2, and led to Republicans taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
“DOE continues to be cooperative and have indicated that they will fund the November draw on our loan (app. $40 million) but have not committed to December yet,” a Solyndra investor adviser wrote Oct. 30. “They did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to Nov. 3rd – oddly they didn’t give a reason for that date.”
Solyndra has become a rallying cry for Republicans who argue Obama used his clean energy initiative to steer valuable loans to benefit his friends and donors. Argonaut is a private equity firm of George Kaiser, who advised his investor deputies on how to approach the White House to help Solyndra with its financial problems.
Earlier in October, Solyndra executives and its investors had warned the agency that they needed emergency financing to keep the company operating after December, and were working with the agency to restructure and ease the terms of its half-billion-dollar federal loan.
On Oct. 25, 2010, Solyndra chief executive Brian Harrison e-mailed the energy department’s loan staff to explain that Solyndra “has received some press inquiries about rumors of problems (one of them with quite accurate information) and we have received in bound calls from potential investors. Both of these data points indicate the story is starting to leak outside Solyndra.”
Harrison went on to state that he would “like to go forward with the internal communication [to employees regarding layoffs] on Thursday, October 28.”
Harrison’s e-mail was forwarded to program director, Jonathan Silver, who then alerted White House climate change czar Carol Browner and Vice President Biden’s point person on stimulus, Ron Klain. Browner asked for more information about the announcement, and Chu’s chief of staff explained he had left a voicemail message on her cellphone.
On Nov. 3, 2010, Solyndra announced it would lay off 40 workers and 150 contractors and shut down its Fab 1 factory. The department agreed to continue giving Solyndra installments of its federal loan despite the company’s failure to meet key terms of the loan, and in February restructured its loan to give investors a chance to recover $75 million in new money they put into the company before taxpayers would be repaid.
Silver resigned from the agency last month.
Click here for original article Washington Post
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Obamacare Update, Millions LOSE Coverage
Since Obamacare’s Passage, MillionsHave Lost Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance
Jeffrey H. Anderson
November 11, 2011 4:42 PM
Throughout the Obamacare
debate, President Obama repeatedly promised, “If you like your health care
plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Now, Gallup reports
that from the first quarter of 2010 (when Obama signed Obamacare into law) to
the third quarter of this year, 2 percent of American adults lost their
employer sponsored health insurance. In other words, about 4.5 million
Americans lost their employer-sponsored insurance over a span of just 18
months.
This is not what the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had predicted would happen. Rather, the CBO
had predicted that Obamacare would increase the
number of people with employer-sponsored insurance by now. It had predicted
that, under Obamacare, 6 million more Americans would have employer-sponsored
insurance in 2011 than in 2010 (see table 4,
which shows the CBO’s projected increase of 3 million under (pre-Obamacare)
current law and an additional 3 million under Obamacare). So the CBO’s rosy
projections for Obamacare (and
even these paint a frightening picture) are already proving false.
Whether the decline in
employer-sponsored insurance over the past 18 months is a product of Obamacare
or of the Obama economy — and whether Obamacare is
the principal cause of the anemic
performance of the Obama economy — can be debated. But what’s clear is
that, more than 25 months before Obamacare would really go into effect — if
it’s not repealed first — employers are already dropping employees from their
insurance rolls.
Take Walmart, for example — a prominent Obamacare
supporter. Gallup writes,
“The nation's largest private
employer, Wal-Mart, announced in October that new part-time employees who work
less than an average of 24 hours a week would no longer be able to get their
health insurance from the company. Wal-Mart laid out several other cuts to its
health insurance offerings, including some workers’ ability get coverage for
their spouses. Other companies have already made and will likely continue to
make similar changes to their health insurance benefits….
“If Wal-Mart's decision is a
precursor of how employers intend to manage their healthcare costs, the
downward trend in employer-based healthcare will likely continue.”
So in addition to costing
about $2.5 trillion over its real first decade (2014 to 2023), looting
nearly $1 trillion from Medicare over that time (according to the CBO), forcing
Americans to buy government-approved health insurance under penalty of law, and
amassing unprecedented power and money in Washington at the expense of
Americans’ liberty — if Obamacare stays on the books, you may like your health
care plan, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you can keep your health care
plan.
It’s time to repeal Obamacare
Monday, November 7, 2011
Boys and their Toys
The price of our hobbies
I know you get complaints from your significant other
regarding the expense of your hobbies (I do).
My Hobbies-- AFTER the cost of entry, there are always ongoing expenses:
·
Boating: Taxes, License, Storage, Maintenance,
Gas, Oil, Batteries, etc.· Fishing: Rods, Reels, Line, Lures, Bait, License, etc.
· Shooting Sports: Club Fees, Range Fees, Ammunition, Cleaning Supplies, etc.
· Photography: Lenses, Memory Cards, Batteries, Photo Development, Framing, Software, etc.
· Computers: Backup drives, Software, Memory upgrades, Larger monitors, routers, etc.
· Oh, and you NEVER hear the end of it, if you want to expand any of your collection
Guys, next time you hear similar complaints about the expense of your hobbies tell her about this:
This is a Saleen S7 2 seat twin turbo supercar ( I am unsure of the year )
Initial purchase price approximately $675,000 it is a one owner car.
Body is comprised of exotic materials-- carbon fiber, & aluminum
Engine 7.0 liter V-8 Twin Turbo 750 hp at time of purchase
Miles driven to date: Approximately 3500
Licensed in Colorado, driven in Calgary Alberta, CanadaRaced all over the world including New Zealand
Used in road racing and setting land speed records for vehicles of this class.
The owner blew an engine attempting a land speed record at a Calgary air force base @ 240+ mph
The owner had the car shipped from Calgary to Brownsburg for repairs.
The car is "road ready" after 8 months in Velox Motorwork's shop.
This is the sixth engine which has been placed in this
car.
This engine is a custom twin turbo aluminum block with
cast iron sleeves, and as it sits creates 1000+ reliable HP. Velox also upgraded the wiring, engine
computer, engine software, among other things.
The engineer I spoke to said it would produce more for "short
bursts".
Velox is aware the owner has invested approximately
$300,000 of additional hardware / repairs since the car was purchased.
Those costs do NOT include "routine & ongoing expenses"
global shipping, transportation costs, entry fees, "scheduled
maintenance" of oil, filters, suspension components, clutch, brakes, tires
(tires alone hover around $550 a piece).
You do the math.
WHATEVER you're into costs the equivalent of lunch at White Castles by comparison. Tell her things could be worse, and you'd like a little more understanding.
Additional Pictures Follow:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)