Fast and Furious: GOP filing lawsuit against Holder in August

I'm not sure what the bigger story is here, that Rep. Darrell Issa is confirming the GOP will be filing its lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder this month over Fast and Furious or the fact that NBC News actually reported it.

h/t Katie Pavlich at Townhall:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Is Obama Administration letting Iran off the Hook for Murder of Marines?

In December of last year, a US federal district judge ruled that Iran and Hezbollah were behind the 9/11 attacks. In 2007, a US federal district judge ruled that Iran was liable for the attack on US Marines in Lebanon in 1983 and ordered Tehran to pony up $2.65 Billion.

Now, the World Tribune is reporting that the Obama administration is blocking legislation that would require the ruling be upheld and enforced.

President Barack Obama, in a bid to reconcile with the Teheran regime, has blocked legislation that would hold Iran accountable for the Hizbullah bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in 1983.

A survivors group has asserted that the administration is pressuring Democrats in Congress not to support a bill that would enforce massive judgements against Iran by the families of the Marines. In 2007, a U.S. federal district court judge found Iran liable for the Beirut bombing and ordered Teheran to pay $2.65 billion in damages.

“This administration talks a lot about sanctions, but we know Iran is watching this case closely and, astonishingly, Obama’s people are taking Iran’s side,” Lynn Smith Derbyshire, a lobbyist for the legislation, said.

Let's not forget that Obama welcomed Hadi al-Ameri into the Oval Office about ten days before Judge George Daniel ruled Iran was responsible for 9/11. Al-Ameri, though a member of the Iraqi government, is and has been an agent for Iran with strong loyalties to the Ayatollah.

h/t Shoebat:

Video: Arizona looking to sue the Feds over Fast and Furious

The Feds have been going after Arizona for quite some time. First, there was SB 1070, Arizona's tough immigration law. The Feds sued to have it overturned and a federal judge did the next best thing; she blocked it and the law has subsequently wallowed, suspended in its operation. Then, sheriff Joe Arpaio was attacked and harassed by Eric Holder's Justice Department, which charged that he violated the civil rights of minorities.

This could be what we call payback, depending on how far it goes. As the scandal that broke a year ago continues to percolate in two House Committees (Oversight and Judiciary), the state of Arizona is looking into the possibility that the Feds may have violated any of the state's laws. This makes for an interesting development in light of the fact that the head of the state's criminal division for the US Attorneys Office, pleaded the fifth when subpoenaed to testify in front of the Oversight committee.



h/t Hot Air

The 9/11 Commission Report - Part II

Former legal counsel to the 9/11 Commission, Janice Kephart is a border / immigration expert who was an integral part of the 9/11 Commission, which concluded that Iran and Hezbollah were likely involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Commission recommended that the United States Government (USG) pursue those leads. USG never followed up but a private sector law firm did. That law firm's conclusions shine an even bigger spotlight on the Obama administration's decision to give an Iran-sponsored terrorist the red carpet treatment.

The 9/11 Commission Report - Part II
Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

If the government has Ten Commandments, the game of politics, not homeland security, would be at the top of the list. Eager to play the game, the Obama Administration pulled out of Iraq in time for Christmas as it welcomed Iran’s puppets into the Oval Office. The Iraqi delegation, headed by Nouri al-Maliki, included a conspirator in Iran’s terror campaigns—the Iraqi Minister of Transportation, Hadi al-Ameri.

To quash the voices of survivors and victims' families who linked al-Ameri to American deaths in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the Obama administration replied, “There is no evidence of Hadi al-Ameri's involvement in any act of violence against U.S. Citizens.”

However, when dots are connected, they point to al-Ameri being an Iranian agent—a first-class terrorist. Ten days after al-Ameri's visit to the White House, US District Judge George B. Daniels signed a 53 page document in Havlish v. Iran that included 276 Statements of Fact and 35 Conclusions of Law in his ruling that the 9/11 attacks were the result of an “Iran-Hezbollah-al Qaeda alliance.” The document showed one Abolghasem Mesbahi—who had defected years earlier after receiving a tip from a colleague that he was on the regime's kill list while working for Iran’s Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS)—testified that MOIS gave material support to Hezbollah. His credible testimony included three coded messages he received in the weeks leading up to the 9/11 attacks from contacts he had inside Iran.

The case revealed that Imad Mughniyah, once Iran's notorious Hezbollah leader, was involved in coordinating and facilitating the 9/11 attacks and committed “numerous terrorist operations against American citizens.” He cracked the FBI's “Most Wanted” list for twenty-one years but al-Ameri’s terrorist rap sheet puts him on par with Mughniyah, whose connection with the Iranian Revolution is not without significance. Arabic translations surfaced from Al-Malaf Net in Amman, Jordan; they uncovered top-secret documents years ago that identified Al-Ameri as:

“...the most prominent identity in this equation. He possesses all the keys relating to the connections with Iran and is in charge of the strongest security authority in Iraq at present—Badr Organization… [al-Ameri] is a high-ranking member in the Central Committee of the institution, known as the Central Authority; it is the largest security/military organization in Iraq that plans and executes dozens of military and security operations against Iran's opposition in various Iraqi cities, on a daily basis. He works directly under the command of Abdel Aziz Al Hakim.”

The documents show that al-Ameri’s Badr is the...

“Central Authority, which  receives its Fatwas for assassination operations directly from Khamenei's office. Targets are specified in coordination with the command of the Iranian Ramadan Base. Hence, any agreed upon operation is executed.”

One such document (pictured) discusses working with the Badr terrorist forces for the purpose of liquidating opponents, controlling the media, and using weapons and provisions provided by the Iranian revolution, to combat “Anglo-American” forces.

Havlish identified Al Quds Brigade, of which al-Ameri is a member, as the “foreign division” of another defendant in Havlish, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Al Quds is responsible for overseas terrorism and named one of the “most... violent terrorist organizations in the world.” Al-Ameri's membership in Al Quds was translated to include the names of agents and victims, as well as his Iranian Al Quds secret file number (10074) and bank account number (3014) into which over 2 million Iranian riyals a month was to be paid as blood monies for carrying out acts of terrorism. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, his religious obedience to Iran’s Islamist regime is quite visual in that al-Ameri can be seen bowing and kissing (video below) the hand of his Fuhrer—the Ayatollah himself. Iran's Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran identifies al-Ameri as having been responsible for 150 terrorist operations over a period of time during which the Khobar Towers were bombed.


Janice Kephart, former staff counsel to the 9/11 Commission, was interviewed for this article and explained why these recent discoveries were absent from the 9/11 Commission Report; there wasn't sufficient time to further develop the intelligence prior to its release. Kephart referred to pages 240 – 241, adding that al-Qaeda members avoided having their passports stamped by Iranian border inspectors; and between 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers traveled into or out of Iran prior to 9/11. Kephart concluded that “The document signed by Judge Daniels really represents part two of the 9/11 Commission Report.” “We showed a tangential connection between al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Iran but after several years, the plaintiffs' attorneys in Havlish really got to the heart of that relationship, and it was extensive.” Senior Counsel for 9/11 Commission staff, Dietrich Snell also submitted an affidavit that corroborated this ‘Iranian connection’ evidence.

Al-Ameri's Oval Office visit occurred despite the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that the United States government (USG) explore Iran's involvement in 9/11. Instead, it took a private law firm spending several years doing what the USG would not, while the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta falsely stated:

“...my view is that the region largely rejects Iran and its intentions and I think Iraq is at the top of that list.”

Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid detailed Panetta's close personal friendship with Communist Party member Hugh DeLacy. The two exchanged letters revealing that then-congressman Panetta pledged to show DeLacy “a series of documents on military and foreign policy matters.”

While some might overlook the red carpet treatment given to terrorist al-Ameri as diplomacy, Obama's recent attempts to build ties with Egypt's notorious Muslim Brotherhood will eventually prove to be catastrophic; the entire Middle East has been presented to Islamists on an altar made bloody by thousands of American soldiers and civilians.

After all, it is an election year and politics is the first Commandment.

Ruh Roh: Is Sarah Palin Preparing a Lawsuit against Publisher of McGinniss Book?

It appears that Andrew Breitbart may have done it again. When Big Government published an e-mail written by Joe McGinniss, the guy who moved in next door to the Palins, it didn't just provide evidence that McGinniss had no hard evidence to back up his tawdry claims; it's causing the Palins to consider suing both McGinniss and his publisher, Random House. In a letter sent to Random House, Palin's attorneys all but make the charge of defamation and then drop a bombshell by reminding the publisher that it is a crime to destroy evidence in the event of litigation.

Via Big Government:

palin redacted 5

Texas Abortion Law: Another Federal Judge Mysteriously Does Obama's Bidding

Just yesterday, I posted that another Federal judge struck down another state's immigration law - in Alabama. The immigration laws in Arizona, Utah, Georgia, and Indiana suffered similar fates. Now, we can throw Texas into the mix as a state that has seen one of its laws struck down by a Federal judge. Though it's not an immigration law, it's just as politically charged; it's a Sonogram Law. In essence, the law required doctors (abortionists) to perform a sonogram before performing an abortion. Coincidentally, just before the law was to take effect, Judge Sam Sparks pulled the rug out.

Wait until you see the logic behind the decision; it has to do with the first amendment.

Via the AP:

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked key provisions of Texas' new law requiring a doctor to perform a sonogram before an abortion, ruling the measure violates the free speech rights of both doctors and patients.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks upheld the requirement that sonograms be performed, but struck down the provisions requiring doctors to describe the images to their patients and requiring women to hear the descriptions.

The law made exceptions for women who were willing to sign statements saying they were pregnant as a result of rape or incest or that their fetus had an irreversible abnormality. Sparks questioned whether the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature was trying to "permanently brand" women who are victims of sexual assault.

The law — one of dozens of anti-abortion measures that advanced through state capitals across the United States this year — takes effect Thursday. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights had sued to block it.

Keep reading because Sparks even argues that forcing doctors to perform sonograms forces them to push an ideological agenda with which they may not agree.

Aside from the fact that an organization from one state (New York) can successfully sue another state (Texas) over the legality of its own laws is absurd, it's mighty interesting how Federal judges across the land continue to do the bidding of this president when it comes to state legislatures.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Open Letter: Attorney asks Arizona Attorney General to Prosecute ATF Officials

During the July 26th Oversight and Government Reform hearing into who knew what, when about ATF's Operation Fast and Furious, former Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the Phoenix division, William Newell was grilled multiple times. One exchange in particular between he and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) took an interesting turn when Gowdy asked Newell to respond to a hypothetical in which Mexican authorities demanded the extradition of any ATF official responsible for implementing the operation. Newell appears to have been quite instrumental in that implementation.

An attorney in Arizona has now sent an open letter to his state's Attorney General requesting prosecution of any and all ATF officials - this would no doubt include Newell - responsible for the conception or implementation of Fast and Furious.

Via Tucson Citizen:

Tom Horne
Arizona Attorney General

Re: ATF Fast and Furious

Dear Mr. Horne

As you are aware, ATF ran a program called “Fast and Furious” out of their Phoenix office whereby the let assault rifles “walk” into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels and various border bandits.

Two of those ATF “walked” guns, which were sold by a Phoenix area gun shop with the knowledge of ATF, were found at the murder scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

While various investigations are on-going at the federal level, there appear to be important state law issues involved in this situation.

I specifically call your attention to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13 Section 1201 “Endangerment”

13-1201. Endangerment; classification

A. A person commits endangerment by recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury.

B. Endangerment involving a substantial risk of imminent death is a class 6 felony. In all other cases, it is a class 1 misdemeanor.

Evidence is mounting that field agents within the Phoenix office of ATF warned their superiors that the “walking” of guns could lead to the deaths of, among others, federal agents.

The warnings of these dedicated and honorable law enforcement officers were ignored by their superiors. The end result was Border Patrol agent Brian Terry died as a result of these “walked” guns.

Arguably senior officials in ATF are chargeable for endangerment under state law.

I would urge you and your staff to look into the record that has been developed so far by the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the sworn testimony by various ATF employees with an eye on what, if any, state criminal laws were violated in the course of the “Fast and Furious” project.

I am suggesting ARS 13-1201 as just one of what may be many examples of violation of state criminal laws by ATF officials.

There is a fundamental issue at stake here.

Sometimes the federal government operates as though it is not subject to any law, even at the federal level. At times it becomes obvious that in the pursuit of their mission, they disregard state law, placing their mission ahead of the public safety and well-being of the people within a state.

Just because they might be federal employees or even federal law enforcement officials, they do not have any kind of immunity for violations of the state criminal code.

I urge you to look closely at the conduct of ATF within Arizona, and investigate whether or not that conduct violated state criminal laws, And if you find the conduct of the ATF senior management did indeed violate state law, please hold those ATF officials accountable to the people of Arizona.

Thank you

Hugh Holub
Attorney at Law
P.O Box 4773
Tubac, Arizona 85646

This would indeed be a great way for Arizona to hit back at the Feds after the whole SB 1070 fiasco. In fact, we'll know there's something to this if the Feds drop their suit against Arizona relative to the state's immigration law in return for Arizona's AG dropping any potential case against ATF agents.

Time for Arizona to start going on offense.

h/t Sipsey Street

CAIR Files Lawsuit Seeking to Ban Book

When guilty parties can no longer use silence to prevent serious charges against them, it usually means those charges have become extremely damaging. Such appears to be the case with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the authors of a book that blow the lid off of CAIR's true intentions. The book - Muslim Mafia - was written based on documents secretly removed from CAIR's offices by the son of the book's author, David Gaubatz. According to Gaubatz's attorney, CAIR is not continuing to pursue litigation because it believes it can win; it's doing so for the purposes of intimidation.

Via WND:

After filing two unsuccessful versions of its complaint, CAIR has filed yet another amended complaint that asks federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., to bar the Gaubatzes and anyone related to their effort from publishing the documents and recordings obtained in the undercover operation.

CAIR interpreted the judge's order to return all copies of the documents as a demand to also return "copies published in the book," according to a Joint Status Report filed April 22 in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Horowitz, a frequent television legal analyst based in the San Francisco Bay area, has teamed with two other high-profile lawyers in the case. Bernard Grimm, in Washington, D.C., is a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel, CNN and Court TV. Martin Garbus, in New York City, is perhaps the country's best known First Amendment lawyer.

Horowitz believes CAIR knows it can't win the case, but he cautioned that the Saudi-funded group "can chill the First Amendment by making it so expensive to speak against them that no one can challenge them."

CAIR is using bully tactics to prevent future lawsuits and challenges. The strategy appears to work when it comes to Fox News Channel, which continues to tout CAIR as a civil rights group. Until these entities stand up to groups like this, they will continue to bully.

Read it all.

Is Obamacare Going to Fall Apart in the Courts?

When Federal judge Roger Vinson ruled Obamacare completely and totally unconstitutional earlier this year, it was a significant victory for opponents of the law but it was like winning one game in a championship series. If you don't win the last one, you still lose. Game 2 is taking place in an Atlanta courtroom with a three-judge panel and Obamacare appears to be off to a very shaky start because the questions being asked by these judges appear to be rooted in the same foundational arguments found in Vinson's decision.

Via LA Times:

A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year's healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges here, who suggested they may be ready to declare all or part of the law unconstitutional.

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal faced off against former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement in what has become the largest and broadest challenge to the healthcare law. In all, 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business joined in urging the judges to strike down the law.

And in an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government's power to force someone to buy a product.

That argument is at the heart of the constitutional challenge to the healthcare law and its mandate that nearly all Americans have health insurance by 2014.

"I can't find any case like this," said Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government? he asked.

Judge Stanley Marcus appeared to agree. "I can't find any case" in the past where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market…. Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"

Yes, it's true that Obamacare is ultimately going to be decided at the Supreme Court but imagine if it gets there after a judge in one court smacks it down and a three-judge panel forcefully affirms that judge's decision, assuming that happens. It would be very difficult for SCOTUS to justify going against those rulings. It would also take us to an entirely new level of statism.

h/t The Blaze

Palpable Irony: Judge Sumi is Sued

The liberal activist judge in Dane County, Wisconsin who issued multiple Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO) to prevent the implementation of the recently passed collective bargaining law is being sued by Wisconsin's Attorney General. Judge Maryann Sumi's last name is pronounced as the threat, 'Sue me.' In a touch of irony, she is being sued in her capacity as a judge who overstepped her constitutional authority by ruling on a law without any legal standing to do so. Sumi also should have recused herself based on her family ties to SEIU. This is why the recent election for State Supreme Court justice on April 5th was so important.

Via Jurist:

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen on Thursday filed a filed a Petition for Supervisory Writ [text, PDF] directly to the state Supreme Court over a circuit court judge's temporary blocking [JURIST report] of a controversial bill that limits the rights of public employee unions. The suit claims that Dane County Circuit Court [official website] Judge Maryann Sumi did not have the constitutional authority to block the publication of the Budget Repair Bill [Senate Bill 11 text, PDF]. It then asks the Wisconsin Supreme Court [official website] to immediately take jurisdiction of the case and dismiss it. A Petition for Supervisory Writ is not a direct appeal of any lower court decision, but rather a procedure that starts a new action altogether [Wis. Stat. 809.70 text] because the petitioner claims a judge violated his or her constitutional authority.

This petition not only goes to the heart of why the Wisconsin State Supreme Court election on April 5th was so important; it is an offensive move on the part of Van Hollen. He's not just asking the Supreme Court to overrule Sumi. He's going after her personally for breaking the law and violating the Constitution. He's playing hardball and if Sumi was smart, she'd agree to lift her ill-advised restraining order and order Secretary of State Doug Follette to certify the law in return for Van Hollen's dropping the lawsuit. I think we're about to find out how willing Sumi is to be a martyr for the progressive agenda.

Then again, if she does lift the restraining order, will Obama's DOJ step in?

h/t Gateway Pundit

Wisconsin Republicans Give Democrats Taste of their Own Medicine

It's long been known to objective observers that Democrats don't care about the rule of law. Their ideological agenda trumps all of that. It's an ends-justify-the-means mentality that is at the heart of that agenda; just read Saul Alinsky. That's the only explanation for why Wisconsin Democrat judge Maryann Sumi (D) put a temporary restraining order on the Wisconsin Collective Bargaining law. When you accept the premise that she had no legal authority to do what she did, it's time for the Republicans to get down in the dirt with these whackos until they're ready to play fair.

It looks like that's exactly what they're doing.

Via JS Online:

Madison — In a stunning twist, Gov. Scott Walker's legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published Friday despite a judge's hold on the measure, prompting a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday.

The measure was published to the Legislature's website with a footnote that acknowledges the restraining order by a Dane County judge. But the posting says state law "requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment."

The measure sparked protests at the Capitol and lawsuits by opponents because it would eliminate the ability of most public workers to bargain over anything but wages.

The restraining order was issued against Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette. But the bill was published by the reference bureau, which was not named in the restraining order.

Laws normally take effect a day after they are published, and a top GOP lawmaker said that meant it will become law Saturday. But nonpartisan legislative officials from two agencies, including the one who published the bill, disagreed.

The Republican state legislature passed the Bill legally and Governor Walker signed it legally. The final step before becoming law required the Secretary of State Doug La Follette to certify it. Enter the partisan chain of events used by the Democrats.

A Democrat District Attorney named Ismael Ozanne filed to block the law based on a violation of the open meetings law. Subsequent to that, Republicans pointed to a law authored in 1983 by two of the Wisconsin Democrat Fleebaggers that completely refuted Ozanne's complaint. Democrat Judge Sumi (Sue me) then proceeded to issue a temporary restraining order on the law with absolutely no grounds for doing so. Go figure, she has union ties and should have recused herself based on that fact. As if that wasn't enough, the Secretary of State, La Follette is also a Democrat who gladly pointed to Sumi's decision as justification for his not certifying the law by the ten day deadline, which was March 25th.

Hats off to Governor Walker and the Republican legislature for publishing the law anyway, without La Follette's certification. It will be interesting to see how willing they are to get down in the dirt to defeat this thuggery. The best way to do it is to know the left's rule book, particularly uncle Saul's Rule #4:

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

We'll know based on the final outcome because the Republicans are in the right - by a long shot - on this one. If the objective of the law is to balance Wisconsin's budget and if, somehow, the Democrats are able to prevent its implementation, the nuclear option for Walker would be to start firing public sector employees until spending is at an acceptable level.

h/t Weasel Zippers

National Version of Arizona Immigration Bill Coming?

What would happen if a Bill made it to Barack Obama's desk that granted state troopers and local police national authority to enforce our federal immigration laws? He would no doubt veto it since he's suing Arizona over their attempt to do so in their state but it would expose him in the same way his veto of any Obamacare repeal bill would.

Via the Daily Caller:

Rep. Ed Royce, California Republican, is planning to introduce a national-level version of contentious Arizona state Senate Bill 1070, The Daily Caller has learned. Royce, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee’s Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade subcommittee, told TheDC his legislation would give state-level cops and local law enforcement nationwide the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.

Royce is planning to introduce the new legislation soon and said, in addition to giving state and local law enforcement more authority, it “establishes operational control of the border” by sending more fencing to the border and keeping the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture from over-regulating how Border Patrol officials put together fences and work on federal lands.

“All the Border Patrol agents are swearing by it [building a fence and keeping the regulatory powers of the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture at a minimum],” Royce said. “So, that’s part of establishing operational control.”

Speaking of vetoes, Obamacare could conceivably go down in the Supreme Court without the need for one. As SB 1070 wallows in the courts, it may also one day be vindicated by the SCOTUS; if this Bill in California is vetoed by Obama and SB 1070 is ruled Constitutional, other states could follow suit. In light of the recent tsunami that transpired in state legislatures, odds are good.

Read it all.

Surprise! Congressional Black Caucus Involved in Pigford Scandal

Lee Stranahan has a new post regarding Pigford over at Breitbart's Big Government. To refresh your memories, the Pigford settlement stemmed from a lawsuit in which black farmers claimed they were discriminated against. The good news is that there were black farmers that rightfully deserved - and received - $50,000 each as compensation. The bad news is that the lawsuit morphed into a huge fraudulent scandal.

Here are two black farmers who rightfully received their settlement. The first is Willie Head, who makes an excellent point when asked how non-farmers who received $50,000 affects his receipt of $50,000.



Here's another black farmer who deserved his settlement. His name is Eddie Slaughter and he implicates the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) in the commission of this fraud in order to pay reparations.

Shocking stuff.



Via Big Government

FEDERAL JUDGE SMACKS DOWN OBAMACARE

First a caveat. This fight is long from over but, make no mistake; it is a victory for those who oppose Obamacare. Federal Judge Henry Hudson ruled yesterday that the Individual Mandate provision in the Obamacare law is Unconstitutional in the lawsuit filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli (R). This is a huge victory because it portends a much greater likelihood that this fight will end up in the Supreme Court.

While on Greta Van Susteren, Cuccinelli explains why it's such a big deal when only one aspect of the Law (the mandate) was struck down; it has to do with the funding. The authors of the bill knew it would be dead in the water if they advocated for additional taxes to fund this monstrosity so they added a requirement that everyone must purchase health insurance.

Cuccinelli explains it just right. The Individual mandate is the pole in the center of the tent. Without that, Obamacare fails. If the Supreme Court strikes down that mandate, the law is useless and is doomed to fail with the 112th Congress.

Video via Gateway Pundit:



More at Fox News.

AUDIO: ATTORNEY FOR LT. COL CALLING FOR OBAMA TO PROVE ELIGIBILITY

Writing about this subject is limited fare for me but there are multiple angles to the content of this interview that transcend Obama's long form Birth Certificate. For starters, the attorney representing Lt. Col Terry Lakin is highly respected and represented the four Navy Seals last year who were acquitted of beating up a terrorist responsible for the for the burning alive of four American contractors in Fallujah who were then hung from a bridge in Fallujah in 2004.

Neal Puckett has represented soldiers on more than one occasion that were wrongfully targeted for how they conducted themselves in combat; he's got plenty of street cred and is on the right side far more often than not.

Another theme that develops here is the conduct of senior officers who don't seem to be willing to - as Col. Allen West says - "go through hell with a gasoline can" for his men.

Lastly, the "Birthers" have two indisputable facts on their side. First, Obama has not presented his long-form Birth Certificate or passport. Second, he's spent millions of dollars preventing it from being released. Those are two very important facts that Lt. Col Lakin does have on his side but it looks like Puckett has conceded Lakin will take the fall; he's just trying to soften it.

It gets good at the end when the interviewer (name unknown), who seems to be somewhat connected to the power structure at the Pentagon calls senior military brass "cowards."

Part 1



Part 2



h/t Impeach Obama

BLACK PANTHER CASE BOMBSHELL - COATES TO TESTIFY

If you thought it was big news when former Justice Department Attorney J. Christian Adams resigned over the DOJ's handling of the New Black Panther Party case so he could testify in front of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, this story is likely to trump that one. Christopher Coates was Adams' boss before the latter resigned over what he indicated was potentially false testimony given by Assistant Attorney General of the Human Rights division inside the DOJ, Thomas E. Perez.

Now it is learned that Coates - a huge piece to this puzzle - will be defying the orders of his superiors not to testify in front of the Civil Rights Commission. Coates has made it known that he WILL honor the subpoena and testify on Friday, September 24th.

Via Pajamas Media:

Ten months ago, Coates, the award-winning former chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, was subpoenaed by the Commission to testify about the case. He was subsequently instructed by DOJ officials to ignore the subpoena. Within the past hour, commissioners were informed that Chairman Gerald Reynolds had spoken with Coates and that the chairman would reconvene the Commission’s ongoing hearing on Friday at 9:30 a.m. to hear Coates’s testimony.

The Civil Rights Commission has sought to obtain Coates’ testimony on Justice’s dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case in Philadelphia. In a recent request to Justice, the Commission agreed to limit initial questioning of Coates to accusations made by former career lawyer J. Christian Adams about statements and other actions by Julie Fernandes, an Obama administration political appointee, if DOJ produced Coates.

The DOJ refused.

Back on June 30th, Adams granted an interview to Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelly. You can watch both parts of that interview HERE.

To get an idea of how potentially explosive Coates' testimony could be, check out this excerpt from that interview:

KELLY: And Chris Coates, his name is going to come up later. He was your boss?

ADAMS: That’s correct.

KELLY: And how many years had he been at DOJ?

ADAMS: He’s a voting rights giant. He’s been practicing voting rights law since 1976. He’s literally one of the greatest voting rights attorneys in the history of the country. And he was the, really the lead on this case.

If there is someone in the DOJ who should be getting a little nervous right now, it's Thomas Perez. If it can be proven that he lied under oath, this could be an extremely big scandal. Another interesting side story to all of this is that Perez is the lead attorney in the Federal suit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

h/t to Pajamas Media

MORE ABOUT THE ASST AG SUING JOE ARPAIO

The name at the top of the federal lawsuit filed on September 2nd against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is that of Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez. This is an important name to know because of what has been learned about him. For starters, this is the same Thomas Perez named by J. Christian Adams, former Attorney within the DOJ's Civil Rights division as the man over whose actions he appeared to resign.

On June 30th, Adams sat down with Fox's Megyn Kelly and clearly implied - though he did not overtly state it - that Thomas Perez may have lied under oath in front of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights when he testified about the "law and the facts" about the voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party. To see the relevant portion of the interview, fast forward to the 1:46 mark.



With that as a backdrop, if true, the entire lawsuit against Joe Arpaio should be called into question. If J. Christian Adams resigned because the man in charge of the lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff's office lied under oath, what business does that man have being Assistant Attorney General, let alone the spearhead in that lawsuit?

PEREZ SPOKE AT A MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL EVENT IN 2009

On December 5, 2009 Thomas Perez spoke in front of the MPAC about, among other things, the need for a civil rights division in the Department of Justice. Here is his opening statement:

As‐Salamu Alaykum to all of you. Thank you, Salam, for that introduction and for your dedication and your hard work leading MPAC. MPAC is an organization that represents not just the best of the American Muslim Community, but the best of America.

MPAC has some extremely suspicious ties to radicals, and counts the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) among groups with which it associates. According to Discover the Networks, Mahdi Bray is one of MPAC's leaders.

Mahdi Bray: Political Director. Mahdi Bray, an African-American convert to Islam who had been active in the civil rights movement, is a firebrand. A controversial radio talk show host in Washington DC, Bray is also on the boards of several other Muslim American groups. He organizes rallies and appears frequently on campuses where he uses inflammatory, theatrical rhetoric. It is not clear if he is still MPAC’s Political Director, but he remains on its Board of Directors. He was a guest speaker for New Jersey Solidarity on March 5, 2003, one of the most extreme and virulent anti-Israel groups.

Last month, it was learned that Bray, along with George Galloway raised funds for Hamas. Here is the video featuring Bray:



Wes Vernon at Renew America has more on Thomas Perez.

h/t to Barrackaid #7

VIDEO: ROBERT GIBBS STYMIED BY LOGICAL IMMIGRATION QUESTION

The fact that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is again caught being stymied is not news in and of itself. What is news is watching him do so in the face of logical questions about the administration's decision to sue Arizona over SB 1070. The essence of the suit is that Arizona doesn't have the right to preempt federal law on issues like immigration. Since the Arizona law mirrors federal law almost to the letter, the feds appear to take issue with Arizona interfering with policy more than infringing upon federal law.

Enter this exchange between a reporter and Gibbs. I guarantee she presents the White House attorneys with a problem they are indeed going to have to address. In short, if the suit against Arizona is about immigration laws being federal issues, why are "Sanctuary City" laws not a problem? They're actually in direct opposition to federal law while Arizona's SB 1070 is concurrent with it?

Gibbs' answer? His favorite one. "I'll have to get back to you on that."

CLICK HERE to read the federal complaint against Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer.

via Breitbart

DOJ SUED OVER BLACK PANTHER CASE STONEWALL

Eric Holder's Department of Justice has found itself on the receiving end of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit over its decision not to prosecute the now infamous - and lingering - Black Panther case. Most know the story about the inexplicable decision by the Justice Department to drop the case despite having a clear cut example of voter intimidation caught on video and the defendants - all Black Panthers - not responding to the complaint. U.S. Attorneys had won a default judgment and were ordered to stand down.

Due to the egregiously blatant nature of that decision, what happened with the FOIA requests by Judicial Watch is not all that surprising.

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on May 29, 2009. The Justice Department acknowledged receiving the request on June 18, 2009, but then referred the request to the Office of Information Policy (OIP) and the Civil Rights Division. On January 15, 2010, the OIP notified Judicial Watch that it would be responding to the request on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, Legal Policy, and Intergovernmental and Public Liaison.

On January 15, the OIP also indicated that the Office of the Associate Attorney General found 135 pages of records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request, but that all records would be withheld in full. On January 26, the OIP advised Judicial Watch that the Office of Public Affairs and Office of Legal Policy completed their searches and found no responsive documents. On February 10, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division indicated that after an extensive search it had located “numerous responsive records” but determined that “access to the majority of the records” should be denied. On March 26, the OIP indicated that the Office of Legislative Affairs and the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison completed searches and found no documents.

Welcome to the Eric Holder led Justice Department. First, 135 pages found to be responsive but the decision was made to withhold them. Then, there were none responsive at all. That was followed by the location of "numerous" documents that were responsive but that most of them should be held. Then, lastly, the decision was made that none were responsive. That old saying, "Tell the truth because it's the easiest thing to remember" comes to mind.

This lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch coupled with an investigation into the Black Panther case by the U.S. Commission on Civil RIghts has definitely brought to bear, significant pressure on the DOJ. One attorney there has already resigned because he was not cooperating with the Commission's probe or FOIA requests. The attorney was obviously being directed by someone not to cooperate but was incurring great personal expense because the DOJ was not declaring Executive Privilege for withholding the documents so the attorney had no reason to withhold them - that is, no overt reason. It would seem to indicate that the practice of throwing people under the bus is not reserved solely for the president. More on the resigning attorney HERE.

Michelle Malkin has a great take on all this in the context of what's going on with Jobsgate - the scandal involving the White House and Joe Sestak. The stonewalling there is not at all dissimilar from that witnessed in the Black Panther case. Unlike the Sestak case however, public outrage at the stonewalling hasn't risen to the level requiring Obama to respond; Obama announced at yesterday's news conference that an official statement on Sestak would be released "shortly".

As this Black Panther case continues to take a similar path to Jobsgate - a slowly percolating scandal that could explode - look for it to one day get a similar level of attention. The probes by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights along with Judicial Watch's lawsuit, along with the ongoing repercussions like the resignations of attorneys, could blow this open as well.

Read the complaint HERE.

h/t to Michelle Malkin

SIGNS THAT LEFT FEARFUL OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL LAWSUITS

In Wisconsin, Governor Jim Doyle (D) - and huge Obamautomaton - has declined to approve the Attorney General's wish to jump on to the Individual mandate lawsuit bandwagon across the country, which is out to litigate the constitutionality of the health care bill. If there was nothing for Doyle to worry about, why take such a publicly partisan stance?

Now we have this in Pennsylvania.

Via Big Government:

In a response to Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett’s decision to join 13 other states in filing a lawsuit against the federal health care legislation, PA House Appropriations Chairman Dwight Evans threatened to “do whatever it takes” to thwart the AG’s efforts. Incensed, Evans even went so far as to say he would be willing to cut off all state appropriations to the Office of the Attorney General to prevent Corbett from fighting this legislation.

Check out this ironically hypocritical and laughable statement from Evans:

We are accountable to the voters of this state. He [Corbett] cannot think that he can do whatever he wants with taxpayer money. No one can protect him from being accountable.

Apparently, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the American people were slapped in the face with the passage of this bill is lost on Evans.

Hypocrisy aside, AG Corbett is already in the process of investigating House Democrats after securing a conviction against one of them. It would seem a bit of a bold move for Evans to get in Corbett's way at this point unless he was truly concerned about these pending lawsuits. There are already 13 filed and with the Governor in Wisconsin taking issue along with a state Representative in Pennsylvania, indications seem to be that the Democrat establishment is increasingly concerned at the prospects of these legal challenges to the health care monstrosity.

Read it all at BG