Saturday, June 23, 2012

There's 'Fire, Not Just Smoke' at Heart of Fast and Furious Cover-Up

Newsmax ^ | 21 Jun 2012 | Paul Scicchitano and John Bachman

One of the U.S. Senate’s leading experts on judicial matters and homeland security tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama’s invocation of executive privilege is a clear signal that there’s something the administration is trying to hide at the heart of the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal.

“There’s fire there. It’s not just smoke, and there’s no other reason to have that,” said Sen. Tom Coburn in an exclusive Newsmax interview. “There is legitimate cause to be concerned about the untruthfulness of the attorney general — and his lack of forthrightness with oversight committees that are studying this.”

Despite the president’s assertion of executive privilege, Coburn believes that the information will ultimately find its way into the public eye.

“It’s going to eventually be exposed,” predicts Coburn, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “The question is ‘can they put it off until after the election? I suspect that’s why the president issued the executive order.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Trails Romney 48-43 – Presidential Approval Index Rating Slides to -22

Gateway Pundit ^ | June 23,2012 | Jim Hoft

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Mitt Romney attracting 48% of the vote, while President Obama earns 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

The president picks up support from just 35% of white voters overall. That’s eight points below the 43% of the white vote he won in 2008. The gender gap is now at 11 points. That’s little changed from the 12-point gap in 2008. Romney leads by 11 among men, and the candidates are even among women.
Obama’s presidential approval index slid to -22 this week.

Miami-Dade Police Drone Spotted Over Memorial Day Weekend Partiers

Gizmodo ^ | June 23, 2012 | BY ANDREW LISZEWSKI

After perfecting them overseas in military situations, it was only a matter of time before the government and law enforcement would start using aerial drones for monitoring US citizens back home. And that time is now, as partygoers in Miami recently discovered.

Back in January of 2011 Miami's police force acknowledged that they'd be the first in the country to employ camera-equipped drones to keep tabs on the city. So while its appearance isn't a complete surprise, this clip from YouTube user 'miamiearl' showing one of the drones monitoring partygoers at a recent Memorial Day weekend celebration, is still a little unsettling.
Of course, police departments all over the country have used camera-equipped helicopters to watch over their jurisdictions for years now. But these remote drones are able to fly a lot closer to the ground, which has citizens worried that the privacy they've enjoyed for years, or at least the feeling of privacy, is in jeopardy.
And it's not like this drone seen in Miami is just going to be a one-off occurrence. New FAA rules have given clearance for more drones to fill civilian skies over the coming years. So in the future, during your Fourth of July celebrations, you should probably get used to the idea of the skies being filled with drones, not just fireworks. [YouTube via Dave Winer via via Prison Planet]

A Note on ‘Fast and Furious,’ Executive Privilege, and the End of the Obama Administration!

PJ Media ^ | June 22, 2012 | Roger Kimball

Calm down. The end hasn’t come yet, not quite. But you can feel it coming, a dull, oppressive presence like the heaviness of the air before a storm, or the quickly widening fissures that consumed the House of Usher. Future historians, looking back on the wreck of the Obama administration, will mark with wonder the president’s darkly frivolous assertion of executive privilege this week. It was then, they will say, that his administration, that the president himself, officially entered the Period of Panic and Flailing.

It’s not going to be pretty. Expect a season of recriminations, grandiosities, and sudden reversals. The usual narrative holds that Obama asserted executive privilege, denying Congress the documents it requested in the murderous case of gunwalking called “Fast and Furious” in order to save his Attorney General Eric Holder. Perhaps. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, at the end of the day, this spectacular piece of recklessness wasn’t regarded as the beginning of the end for Eric Holder, who will likely face a Contempt of Congress citation next week. Already, various outlets are preparing the ground by quietly inserting into the discussion the name of Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general under President George W. Bush who was hounded out of office by Democratic zealots after he fired some U.S. attorneys. The idea, I suspect, is to upholster the ground so that when (as I predict) Holder is forced out Obama cheerleaders like the New York Times can resort to the tu quoque strategy: “Well, Bush’s attorney general had to resign, too, and some of his staffers were held in contempt.”
Will the upholstery work? Will it successfully insulate public opinion from the damaging facts of the case? I doubt it. For one thing, the two incidents are screamingly different. As usual, Andy McCarthy outlined the issue with superlative clarity:

[T]he Bush situation involved (a) a non-crime (presidents do not need a reason to fire U.S. attorneys), (b) a non-scandal manufactured into a scandal (Bush 43 fired 8 U.S. attorneys; Clinton had fired 92 of the 93, and for no better reason than partisan patronage after he defeated Bush 41), and (c) patently improper subpoenas to the president’s personal staffers who are not subject to Senate confirmation and assist him in his constitutional duties. The Obama/Holder situation, to the contrary, involves outrageous government malfeasance in firearms transfers that led to murders, including the killing of a federal agent, and a patently proper subpoena for documentation maintained by the Justice Department, an agency created by Congress and dependent on Congress for its existence, funding and jurisdiction.
We need to keep those differences in mind as the story unfolds. We also need to remind ourselves of how blatantly, er, economical Eric Holder has been with the truth as he testified under oath before Congress. He didn’t know about Fast and Furious, no sirree, until the day before yesterday, except that internal Justice Department documents show he knew about it back in July of 2010. An email discussing “Fast and Furious” was really about an operation called “Wide Receiver” and was overseen by George W. Bush’s Attorney General Michael Mukasey, except that it wasn’t, as Holder eventually acknowledged (without, however, apologizing to Mr. Mukasey). The more we know about Fast and Furious, the more it appears that Holder’s testimony before Congress is a tissue of evasions, equivocations, and outright lies.
For ordinary folk, lying under oath is a serious offense. What does it portend for above-the-law elites like Eric Holder? At the very least, I suspect, it means that he should be polishing his resume. And here’s something else to ponder: as I say, Obama’s assertion of executive privilege has been widely interpreted as an effort to protect Holder. Yet I can’t help thinking that behind that spectacular performance I hear the revving of a bus engine, a bus that has Eric Holder’s name on it and that he is shortly to be thrown under. Sure, the president wants to conceal something by asserting executive privilege. The dramatic and politically risky nature of the act naturally leads one to suspect that it is something serious. You can’t hear the phrase “executive privilege” without thinking “Watergate,” a word you can’t hear without thinking “cover-up,” “Nixon,” “impeachment.” In fact, Fast and Furious is far worse than Watergate. No one died in Watergate. Dozens of people are dead as the result of Fast and Furious, including at least one U.S. citizen, Border Agent Brian Terry.
No, Obama’s assertion of executive privilege will do little if anything to save Eric Holder. Its chief effect, I predict, will be to focus attention more sharply on the great questions that have not been sufficiently plumbed: Who is Barack Obama? What does he have to hide?

Obama’s Presidential Constitutional Over-Reach is Crucial Lesson From History

Examiner ^ | June 23, 2012 | Kevin Fobbs

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules against the unsound Obamacare, President Obama will not be the first president in modern times to be handed an absolute power grab attempt back to him like day old hash by the court. All one has to do is go back to the early 20th century when another democrat president felt that he had an imperial hold upon how the Constitution and the law should apply, much like the 1995 sci-fi movie character Judge Dredd in the movie “Judge Dredd” The character arrogantly claimed “I am the Law!”
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to usher in a host of overreaching laws to tackle the great depression. These laws appeared more like socialism remedies from the USSR, than actual American democracy’s embrace of private sector stimulus solutions.
In fact, then President Roosevelt was called on the proverbial carpet by powerful Ohio U.S. Senator Simeon D. Fess (R-Ohio). Ohioans are known for honest plain-speaking and Senator Fess claimed that Roosevelt was the nation’s leading socialist. Senator Fess stated on August 7th 1934, in the Chicago Daily Tribune, that Ohioans and Americans should, “remove any doubt of his policy of state socialism, which necessitates...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Cries of Cover-Up in Possible Vote on Attorney General (Reuters primer on Fast and Furious)

Reuters via The Chicago Tribune ^ | Saturday, June 23, 2012 | Donna Smith and Richard Cowan

In the classic Washington investigation at the highest levels of power, it is never the original offense that leads to trouble. It is who knew what and who said what that powers the probe and brings forth the cry of cover-up.
That script is being followed almost to the letter in the drama that continues this week as the Republican-controlled House of Representatives prepares for a possible vote on contempt of Congress charges against the highest law enforcement official in the country, Attorney General Eric Holder.
It began as a congressional probe of Operation "Fast and Furious," a botched effort by the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to trace illegal gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels.
But now it is about a letter from the Justice Department to members of Congress dated February 4, 2011 denying the operation's existence.
The denial was vehement but, it turned out, inaccurate, as the department conceded when it formally withdrew the letter on December 11, 2011.
The Justice Department "obstructed the investigation" for nearly a year, said Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. What the committee now wants to know is how and when officials knew the February 4 letter was wrong and why it took so long for them to retract it.
The subpoena the committee issued last week was largely for post-February 4 documents that might shed light on those questions. The claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama at the request of his attorney general covers those very same papers.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Does Fish Oil Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease?

PJ Media ^ | June 23, 2012 | Theodore Dalrymple

Immortality is but a diet away!

When I was young I was told that eating fish made you clever, in the same way that eating carrots made you see in the dark. Luckily I always liked fish, though whether it had the desired effect upon my intellect it is not for me to say.

At any rate, the connection between eating fish and brain function has long been part of common folklore, and it is probably for this reason that large numbers of people approaching old age take fish oil capsules in the hope of warding off Alzheimer’s disease. This, no doubt, is an example of the belief or superstition that, if only we got our diet right, we should never fall ill. Immortality is but a diet away.

A meta-analysis of trials of fish oil capsules or margarine in the prevention of cognitive decline has just been published in, or on, the Cochrane Library, a website devoted to examining the evidence for (or of course against) the use of drugs and medical procedures in the prevention and treatment of illnesses. The quality of the analyses published in, or on, the Cochrane Library is generally accepted as the best possible.
The authors aggregated the results of three trials that met their methodological criteria. The trials had to be double-blind and placebo-controlled, and involved 3,536 participants who were cognitively unimpaired and over the age of 60. Subjects took fish oil capsules or margarine (or placebo) for 6, 20 or 40 months.
There was no evidence that fish oils prevented cognitive decline as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination, the measuring instrument usually used in such trials, and other simple tests. The only significant side-effect of taking fish oil was mild gastrointestinal disturbance; overall levels of side-effects were as great among those taking placebo as those taking fish-oil.
There are severe limitations in what can be concluded for the meta-analysis, however. Because the cognitive decline in both treatment and control groups was so small, the trials did not have sufficient power to detect any possible benefit, much less to draw definite conclusions about the ability of fish oils to prevent Alzheimer’s disease. Moreover the fish oil was taken by subjects for at most 40 months; perhaps if it were taken for longer, and the follow-up were also for longer, a difference would manifest itself. Since the trials excluded people with dementia that was already manifest, it was impossible to conclude from the results whether or not fish oil is of benefit in established dementia.
The authors did not conclude that people should not take fish oil supplements, because they said that such fish oils might have benefits other than in the prevention of cognitive decline. And since longer trials might be necessary to establish definitively the uselessness (or otherwise) of fish oils in the prevention of cognitive decline, those who put their faith in them are not yet forced by the evidence to abandon it or risk joining the ranks of the irrational.
For the moment, nutritionists recommend the consumption of fish twice a week, including of oily fish — salmon, herrings, mackerel or sardines — at least once a week. I confess I find such recommendations suspect: how do the nutritionists know that three times a week would not be better, or once a week as good as twice?
The decision as to what to eat cannot be taken on the basis of placebo-controlled double blind trials, first because such trials usually establish very little (and that little is often contradicted by subsequent trials), and second because there are purposes to eating other than the preservation or improvement of health. Meals are not medical procedures, and the dinner table is not, or not yet, an operating table.

America’s Future: Instability, Insecurity, Inflation, and Insurrection?

 Don Boys, Ph.D.

Is America about to hit an iceberg, or to change metaphors in midstream, are we about to experience a train wreck unlike any other? Economic disaster is dead ahead and we are racing toward it at an incredible speed. Elected officials, of both parties, are reckless, hopeless, irresponsible, and criminal. The financial abyss is too wide to jump but stupid politicians will try to make it with two jumps! The really dumb ones will try three jumps!
Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Mundell declared, “We’ve never been in this unstable position in the entire currency history of 3,000 years.” And make no mistake; this disaster will not be confined to the U.S. but will be worldwide. Fearful of getting caught with U.S. dollars when the music stops, China and other nations are buying gold. Why add almost worthless U.S. dollars to the astounding hoard of dollars they already possess? They know that our dollar is flopping on the deck like a dying fish.
About half of Americans believe another great depression is coming in the next two years followed, I believe, with heart-stopping inflation. I believe it will be an historic global disaster that will produce hostility, hardship, hoarding, homelessness, hopelessness, hunger, hatred, hysteria, homicide, and horror–international horror. It may be so bad that many nations, including the US will declare martial law and incarcerate masses of ordinary Americans who take the wrong positions, ask the wrong questions, advocate the wrong issues, and act the wrong way.
It is dangerous to be right and advocate it, when the government is wrong. Police officers and the military will probably be ordered to shoot Americans “to restore order.” Some of the officials will refuse to obey orders which could cost them their lives, producing even additional chaos, resulting in danger, disorder, and death.
With so many citizens out of work who cannot pay taxes, the government will receive less and less money while expenditures grow more and more. Without money to pay the interest on our national debt, the only way out is to print more money resulting in hyperinflation. That is reminiscent of Zimbabwe where in recent years three eggs cost one hundred billion dollars and hamburgers cost fifteen million dollars. Almost everyone in Zimbabwe is a millionaire. They are starving to death but they are millionaires. Watch out America. Here we come.
Without money, the U.S. Government will have to default on payments to seniors, vets, disabled, etc. No more checks from the Feds! When the old folks, disabled, and veterans storm the Capital in desperation, that will be the government’s justification for the military to keep order contrary to the law. The military will be ordered to keep the peace (in direct opposition to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that prohibits the use of U.S. military forces to perform the tasks of civilian law enforcement). Authorities will say, “but disaster is ahead, so it’s necessary just this time.”
Senator Mark Warner warned, “We’re approaching financial Armageddon!” And Senator Joe Manchin said we face a “fiscal Titanic!” However, federal officials close their eyes to the facts and demand, “Full speed ahead.” After all, what’s a little ice to this unsinkable ship?
Inflation can destroy America as it has done to other nations. In the 1990s, Yugoslavia, a southeast European nation, was broke. Yugoslavia was an outgrowth of WW I, and following WW II, it became a part of the Soviet Union. Of course, Communism never works and the nation was bankrupt. The Communist officials decided to proceed down the ramp leading to the inflation freeway that leads to serfdom as has happened to so many other nations. Communism never works.
Since Yugoslavia was out of money, public officials did what all respectable stupid politicians do: they began to steal the peoples’ money. (Think: Obama’s plan to take over our retirement plans!) Furthermore, citizens were limited in removing their own funds from their banks. (Think: Roosevelt’s “bank holiday” two days after he took office in 1933.) We can always count on politicians being politicians and count on totalitarians being totalitarians.
Of course, the Yugoslavian government’s effort to restore sanity was insanity. They forbade people access to their own money and started to print money day and night, a practice followed by so many other nations. They established wage and price controls that have never worked. With prices doubling so often, the producers (forbidden to raise their prices to keep up with inflation) did what even a fool would do: the producers stopped producing! Why work and produce when you can’t even break even? One does not have to be a Nobel Prize winning economist to understand simple economics.
Citizens could no longer purchase bread, cheese, cars, gasoline, clothes, and other necessities. And even if bread were available it now cost $50,000,000,000,000. That’s 50 trillion dollars for a loaf of bread! At this time, society fell apart or more correctly was ripped apart by incautious, indecisive, incompetent, and inept public officials.
The desperate, the demented, and the dishonest elements in Yugoslavia preyed upon helpless, innocent people. They robbed pharmacies, taking drugs and selling them in front of the stores they had robbed! The nation came apart especially in the cities.
Yugoslavia no longer exists.
Copyright 2012, Don Boys, Ph.D.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 14 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Three years ago, the second edition of ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! was published, and his new eBook, The God Haters is available for $9.99 from These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations. His other web sites are and Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)

Is Hillary 'Mentally 'illary'? (with video)

American Thinker ^ | June 23, 2012 | Jeannie Deangelis

Quite frankly, Hillary Clinton appears to be losing it. She is letting her hair down, literally and otherwise. Based on her behavior lately, the former first lady/current secretary of state is either trying to rehabilitate her stoic reputation, ecstatic that Bill's off supporting African farmers, or throwing caution to the wind and loosening up a bit.
Over the years, Hillary has said and done some pretty crazy things. Who can forget when Hillary, born in 1947, concocted the story that her late mother Dorothy named her after Mount Everest mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary, who became famous five years after the little Rodham was born?
Or ...
Mrs. Clinton blamed allegations of Bill's peccadilloes on a "vast right wing conspiracy"; she lifted "gifts" from the White House and called it a "clerical error"; she perceived herself to be instrumental in both the Irish peace process and the economic recovery of the 1990s; and she jokingly (but not really) credited the fall of Libya and death of Gaddafi to her visit. These are but a few examples of bizarre statements and behavior that until now appeared to be only for political purposes.
Recently, after ditching her signature scrunchie and casting off that banana clip, Hillary officially let her hair down. She's "come out of the closet," so to speak, in the party-girl sense of the word. Either that or the wheels started coming off Hillary's restraint bus back in April, when a photograph was circulated of "Hillz" submitting a text message on her Blackberry to the "Texts from Hillary" Tumblr blog while wearing a pair of sunglasses that would make Men in Black 3 star Will Smith proud.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

In my humble opinion, this article on the World's Smartest Woman is well worth a read ... and the video wherein she makes a big hee haw and then cackles at her own joke, will make the highlight reels for a long time. 


Democrat Party says Obama doesn’t HAVE to be eligible to serve as President!

by Doug Book, staff writer

Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their boy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and that it doesn’t matter.

According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit, “…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.” (1)

In numerous previous lawsuits questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats have maintained that voters, not the Constitution, should be the final arbiters of presidential eligibility. Though a disgraceful assertion on its face, such mindless rambling was about all desperate Democrat attorneys had in their arsenals, apart from the perpetually employed “plaintiffs lack standing” defense.

But now the cat is out of the bag and the true sentiments of Democrat Party officials have finally been aired. It seems that according to the left, as long as the acting president has the requisite contempt for the United States, is willing to work tirelessly to destroy the national economy and will ignore both the rule of law and his Constitutional duty to enforce it, he is eminently qualified to hold the country’s top job.
In February, Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi ignored Supreme Court precedent, made a shambles of case law and distorted the rulings of other courts in a pathetically obvious mission to find Barack Obama eligible for the Georgia presidential ballot. Although the first judge to decide an Obama eligibility case on the merits, his contempt for an honest judicial process certainly did nothing to mend the rapidly deteriorating reputation of the American legal system.
On Wednesday, United States District Judge S. Thomas Anderson joined a long list of robed colleagues, ruling that plaintiffs in the Tennessee case “lacked standing” to point out Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for the presidency. That is, plaintiffs could not claim sufficient personal harm should the Manchurian Candidate remain in or be re-elected to the White House.
Strange how the law works. After 3 ½ years of cynical disregard for the borders, language and culture of the United States, one would think some 240 million people have suffered “sufficient personal harm” to claim legal standing for a crack at His Royal Highness in a court of law! Only 30 million illegals currently residing in the United States and those the Attorney General refers to as “his people” might actually lack legal standing in the eyes of an honest arbiter.
At any rate, Democrats have finally admitted what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Barack Obama is NOT qualified to hold the job won for him by the national media in 2008. But it seems only the voters will have the authority to reclaim it from him. God willing, the vast majority who exercise that authority in November will be both American and alive.
Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative:
To read more use these links:

Decisions, Decisions: How High Court Could Rule on Health [4 Possible Outcomes]

WSJ ^ | 6/23/12 | Peter Landers

The Supreme Court is ruling next week on the Obama health law. Of the many possible scenarios, here are the most likely four, shown in order of how much of the law would be struck down...

Scenario #1: The entire law is upheld...
Scenario #2: The insurance mandate is struck down, but the entire rest of law stays...
Scenario #3: The mandate and two related provisions are struck down but the rest of the law stays...
Scenario #4: The entire law is struck down.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Don't do the crime If ya can't do the time!

Rally set to protest Arpaio's Tent City
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 23, 2012

Posted on Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:55:48 PM by yorkie
More than 1,000 critics of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio are expected to gather Saturday night for a rally to call for the closure of the sheriff's complex of canvas jail tents.
Organizers say conditions in Arpaio's "Tent City" complex are inhumane.

The sheriff has said he doesn't see any problems with housing inmates in tents and often points out that some members of the U.S. military live in tents. 

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Don't do the crime
If ya can't do the time

Fact Checker: Repeat Use of Debunked Claims Sinks Obama Ad (WaPo destroys Romney outsourcing smear)

The Washington Post ^ | Saturday, June 23, 2012 | Glenn Kessler

The Obama campaign apparently loves to ding former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney with the charge of “outsourcing.” On several occasions, we have faulted the campaign for its claims, apparently to little avail.
Now, all of the claims have been combined in one 30-second ad, with the added incendiary charge that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was a “corporate raider.” Let’s look anew at this material.
Regarding the other claims, concerning Canadian electronics maker SMTC Manufacturing and customer service firm Modus Media, the Obama campaign tries to take advantage of a gray area in which Romney had stepped down from Bain — to manage the Salt lake City Olympics — but had not sold his shares in the firm. We had previously given the Obama campaign Three Pinocchios for such tactics.
As we mentioned, we recounted this ancient Massachusetts history before, giving the campaign Two Pinocchios. So we were very surprised the Obama campaign cited that critical Fact Checker column as a source for the ad in its back-up materials.
The ad also cites as a source a Boston Globe article from last month that merely reports on an earlier ad making similar charges. That’s highly circular reasoning — and is not fair play.
The Pinocchio Test
The Obama campaign fails to make its case. On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue, from the use of “corporate raider” to its examples of alleged outsourcing. Simply repeating the same debunked claims won’t make them any more correct.
Four Pinocchios
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Research Study That Someone Actually Did: Birds prefer to poop on red cars!

Yahoo News ^ | June 22, 2012 | Tecca

Does it seem like your new cherry red car attracts more bird droppings than your old, beat up green one? Well, that may not be your imagination: A recent study into bird behavior suggests that red cars are at the highest danger for being a target for defecating avians.

In the study, conducted in June 2012 for online retailer Halfords on 1,140 cars in the U.K., a full 18% of all the red cars tested wound up being the target of a bird bathroom break. Blue cars were almost as targeted, at 14%. Rounding out the study, 11% of black cars, 7% of white cars, 3% of gray cars, and 1% of green cars were all fated to the carwash by the foul acts of wayward birds. Researchers performed their experiment both in the country and on the shore, but found little distinction between birds' pooping preferences based on location.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Rep. Gowdy: Nancy Pelosi 'mind-numbingly stupid,' recommends doctor visit! ^ | 06/23/12 | Joe Newby

On Thursday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) lashed out at Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), calling her recent comments regarding Fast and Furious "mind-numbingly stupid," and suggested she "schedule an appointment" with a doctor.

On Thursday, Pelosi claimed that the contempt vote against Attorney General Eric Holder was part of a grand conspiracy to undermine his fight against voter suppression.
“This is no accident. It is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of the Republicans,” Pelosi said.
“It’s really beneath the office of a member of Congress to say something that outrageous, and the fact that she was once the speaker is mind-numbing,” Rep. Gowdy told Fox News' Greta van Susteren.
"I have heard a lot in my 16 years as a prosecutor. I couldn’t believe the words coming out of her mouth," he added.
"I don’t know what was wrong with her when she said that. But I would schedule an appointment with my doctor if she thinks that we are doing this to suppress votes this fall. That is mind-numbingly stupid," Gowdy said.
Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit reminded readers that "Pelosi also said Democrats brought down the deficit after they increased it by a trillion dollars."
"She’s either mind-numbingly stupid or a chronic liar, or both," Hoft wrote.
Gowdy also took the administration to task for invoking executive privilege at the last minute.
”If executive privilege were so sacred, they would have invoked it 10 months ago,” he said. “To wait 10 minutes before we start a markup? They still haven’t told us which documents are privileged.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Holder once again stonewalls on Holy Land Foundation documents!

Money Jihad Blog ^ | 22 June 12 | Unknown

Attorney General Eric Holder has once again refused to supply Congress with the same documents that were provided to the defendants in the Holy Land Foundation trial who were convicted of funding Hamas under questioning from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) during a congressional hearing.

Yes, you read that correctly. The “Holy Land Five” and their attorneys were given access to materials with information about their own crimes which the Justice Department will not even share with the members of Congress who represent the district where the Holy Land Foundation perpetrated its felonious terror funding operation.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Video of Gohmert questioning Holder at link: 

Obama’s Rapid Decline

Redstate, Inc ^ | Tuesday, June 19th 2012 | Posted by littletboca

Obama is on the fast track now in his agenda to destroy America – Americans are gasping for breath and trying to stay afloat, but we’re being manipulated and devoured by a desperate man, a would be dictator who no longer hides behind closed doors.

He boldly improvises, rewrites and changes the laws of our land (Constitution) daring us to confront him. Even his own Administration is starting to realize that we have a mad man on the loose.

Democrats realize they’re powerless and out of control because they put all their eggs in one basket betting on the “devil” who promised Americans jobs, smaller Government, transparency, lower unemployment, secure borders, a balanced budget and most of all unity.

Professor Roberto Unger a political adviser for Obama in 2008 has harsh comments about his one-time student saying, President Obama must be defeated in the upcoming election. Mr. Unger posted a YouTube video outlining the reasons why Obama doesn’t deserve a second term.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama weaves Fast and Furious fight into his re-election narrative

By Amie Parnes

President Obama escalated a battle between his administration and the Republican House over Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday in ways that could benefit his reelection campaign.

By asserting executive privilege over “Fast and Furious” documents sought by the House GOP, Obama inserted himself directly into the fight between Holder and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman. He also made it easier to run against not only Mitt Romney, but a Republican House he hopes to portray as divisive and overly extreme.

The move enabled the White House to shift the story surrounding the controversial gun-tracking operation and to scold Republicans — under an increasingly bright public spotlight — for focusing on what the administration dubs a political witch hunt instead of passing federal transportation funding and extending low interest rates on federally backed student loans.

“If you had to find one person who is the most over-the-top in terms of partisanship, you would select Darrell Issa,” said Lanny Davis, who served as a special counsel to President Clinton (and who writes a column for The Hill).

He predicted that the fight against Issa will be “quite helpful” to Obama, who is expected to deliver remarks on Thursday urging Congress to pass legislation that would prevent student loan interest rates from doubling.

“I think Democrats are joyful that he is the face of the party they’re running against,” he said.

Yet the assertion of executive privilege by the White House is also a risk for Obama.

It brings the president closer to the Fast and Furious scandal and directly connects Obama to Holder, seen by some as a controversial figure in the administration. It also allowed Republicans on Wednesday to suggest a deeper cover-up.

“It’s a terrible error,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican consultant. “It now links Obama directly to Holder in a way that hasn’t been done so far. The White House up until this point had done a pretty good job of staying away from the Justice Department on this issue.”

Obama is ratcheting the matter up “to a whole new level,” Mackowiak said.

“It’s moving away from just a Washington story to one that will be on the front pages and the network evening newscasts,” he said. “The White House has basically put all their chips on the table and have said, ‘Come and get it.’ ”

Republican strategists and consultants say the move to help Holder is part of a larger plan by Team Obama to move off the message of the struggling economy. They point to Wednesday’s decision and Obama’s aggressive order late last week — to halt deportation of young immigrants who were brought into the country illegally — as proof.

“It really seems as if the Obama campaign and the Obama administration have been flailing for the past three or four weeks, going in multiple directions off message, and they have allowed these issues to mushroom to the point where the public will have to take notice,” said Republican strategist Keith Appell. “People still like President Obama, but if he starts invoking Watergate-era policies that fly in the face [of] his commitment to transparency, and if he starts rewiring the laws on issues like immigration, then that starts to make him look like he’s desperate and in way over his head.”

Running against Congress, Appell continued, is “a severely flawed strategy, because Democrats control half of Congress.”

As the fight between Holder and Issa escalated in recent months, the White House maintained it had done everything possible to accommodate congressional investigators, producing more than 7,600 pages of documents and testifying at 11 hearings on Capitol Hill. The administration argues that Republicans have pursued a fight that is “purely political.”

White House aides, who carefully weighed the risk of injecting Obama into the debate, said Congress should be focused on improving a down economy.

“With millions of Americans still struggling to pay the bills, Republicans announced at the beginning of this year that one of their top priorities was to investigate the administration and damage the president politically,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in an email Wednesday.

“Instead of creating jobs or strengthening the middle class, congressional Republicans are spending time on a politically motivated, taxpayer-funded election-year fishing expedition,” he said.

Zimmerman Prosecutors Struggle to Outmaneuver Florida Law

US Politics Today ^ | June 23, 2012

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is complicating matters for prosecutors rushing to convict George Zimmerman. The law is clear that residents can meet force with force when they feel threatened.

Florida's Stand Your Ground law allows residents to use deadly force to defend themselves or their property, and when doing so, protects them from prosecution. This law may derail the prosecution of defendant George Zimmerman in the much-publicized case of a neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed teenager Trayvon Martin.
State prosecutors see the case as open-and-shut, arguing that Martin was simply a kid buying a soda at a convenience store. When Zimmerman called 911 to report a suspicious individual, police told him to stand down until they arrived; he did not.
While authorities note that the one possibly threatening detail about Trayvon Martin was a simple hooded sweatshirt, George Zimmerman claims that Martin physically attacked him.
Florida's Stand Your Ground law is clear: an individual has no duty to retreat from a public confrontation in which he or she reasonably perceives a danger. As the Miami Herald notes, Floridians are allowed to "meet force with force." In fact, Zimmerman was not initially arrested by police at all for this very reason.
And, the law receives strong support. A recent Quinnipiac University poll finds support for the state law at 56 percent, with only 35 percent opposed to it.
While he was eventually charged with second degree murder, state prosecutors have no easy task to explain why Stand Your Ground should not apply to George Zimmerman. In fact, anyone facing charges of murder or homicide in Florida should discuss their situation with an experienced criminal defense attorney who will hold the prosecution accountable for proving their case at every step and ensure the defendant's rights under state law are respected.

Made-up memories: Lies OBama tells about himself!

headshotJonah Goldberg

It’s becoming increasingly clear that President Obama is not burdened with too heavy a commitment to honesty.

This is hardly a shock about any politician, but revelations of dishonesty hurt some more than others. Announce that Bill Clinton has been speaking falsely, and it hits the ears with as much force as the news that birds fly, fish swim and dogs lick their own nether regions.
But Obama was supposed to be different. He was a “lightworker,” an ocean tamer and cynicism slayer. In short, he was supposed to be too good to be true — and it turns out he was.
This much is true: The future president visiting with his proud grandparents on a bench by Central Park during his time at Columbia.
Courtesy Barack Obama

This much is true: The future president visiting with his proud grandparents on a bench by Central Park during his time at Columbia.

That’s one obvious conclusion to be drawn from the all-too-delayed vetting of the president’s biography, most notably in David Maraniss’ aptly titled new book, “Barack Obama: The Story.”
Obama has been less than honest about many things. Some of his biggest distortions should be the subject of sustained soul- searching on the part of the media. For instance, as New York Times reporter Janny Scott first reported over a year ago, Obama lied about his cancer-stricken mother being denied coverage for her pre-existing condition. Yes, he was close to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former terrorist Bill Ayers. Yes, he was a member of the socialist New Party (as my National Review colleague Stanley Kurtz has documented).
In the spirit of charity, some of the lies can be chalked up, at least in part, to fanciful family narratives. Obama claims his maternal grandfather fought in Patton’s army and liberated Nazi death camps. He says his paternal grandfather was tortured by the British imperialists in Kenya. He’s claimed his Indonesian stepgrandfather was killed by the Dutch while fighting for independence. None of that is true.
What I find more interesting are the lies Obama tells not so much about himself, but about society. In “Dreams from My Father,” Obama tells readers that he struggled with racism and racial alienation all his life. He wasn’t a starter on his high school basketball team because he played “black” while his coach coached “white.” He confabulated a black friend in high school who, like himself, was shunned for racial reasons. He wrote of a “big fight” with a white ex-girlfriend who, after seeing a racially charged play, “started talking about why black people were so angry all the time.”
As Maraniss methodically shows, these and other tales of racial woe were false. His coach didn’t start him because he wasn’t good enough to start. His friend in high school was half-Japanese, not black, and neither of them were racially ostracized. The girlfriend, Genevieve Cook, never saw the play and never said anything of the sort. And so on.
The Barack Obama who wrote “Dreams From My Father” probably never dreamed of becoming president of the United States. That man was a product of campus culture — at Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago — and his vignettes of racial struggle were in some respects the coin of his realm. Later, when he entered the national political scene, he discovered this currency was accepted by much of the mainstream media as well.
No doubt Obama experienced racial animosity in his life, but not enough to fill a memoir with true examples. No doubt life had been unfair to him, but not so unfair as to keep him from Harvard, the Senate or the White House. He has lived a charmed life in almost every regard, but the truth is not as compelling as the legend.
The lies, the self-made myths and the whole gestalt of the Obama story as told by Obama and his fans boil down to a man who has struggled with adversity and proven himself better than the society that spawned him. In effect, we don’t deserve Barack Obama. Perhaps this helps explain why Michelle Obama once said that the impending nomination of her husband was the first time in her adult life she was proud of America.
One pattern holds from beginning to end of the tale: When things go wrong for the young Barack, the truth must be bent to show that it’s somebody else’s fault. Young Barry Obama had the right stuff as a basketball player but was denied by the smallness of his coach’s vision. Older Barack Obama, likewise, has the right stuff, but voters, or the Republicans, or maybe the Europeans, are too small to recognize his greatness. The truth of the matter has nothing to do with it.
Jonah Goldberg’s new book is “The Tyranny of Clichés.”

Read more:

Exodus: Wisconsin Government Workers Abandon Unions in Droves! ^ | June 22, 2012 | Guy Benson

First, a mea culpa: I'm several weeks late to this story, but it's so significant that I figured I'd adopt a "better late than never" approach and bring this to your attention anyway:

Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees - the state's second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers - fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme's figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment. Much of that decline came from Afscme Council 24, which represents Wisconsin state workers, whose membership plunged by two-thirds to 7,100 from 22,300 last year.
A provision of the Walker law that eliminated automatic dues collection hurt union membership. When a public-sector contract expires the state now stops collecting dues from the affected workers' paychecks unless they say they want the dues taken out, said Peter Davis, general counsel of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. In many cases, Afscme dropped members from its rolls after it failed to get them to affirm they want dues collected, said a labor official familiar with Afscme's figures. In a smaller number of cases, membership losses were due to worker layoffs.

Wow. Jim Geraghty's extemporaneous headline nailed the lesson here: "Here’s What Happens When Government Stops Collecting Dues for Unions." This is exactly right. For all of the noise organized labor made about paying more toward their healthcare and pensions, and the Hitleresque erosion of their sacred collective bargaining "rights," this is what really kept union bosses up at night. If Scott Walker could make paying dues non-compulsory, they worried, manyrank-and-file members may realize they just aren't too interested in automatically donating to Democrats cycle after cycle after all. Many of them might therefore opt out of the racket in order to spend their money as they see fit, thus derailing the gravy train. As we now see, those fears have been realized on a grand scale; Wisconsin's public sector union rolls have been decimated in just over a year. Given a free choice, government workers have clamored to drop mandatory dues like a bad habit. Remember, this is why the Maddow crowd was so apoplectic over the spectacularly failed Wisconsin recall-o-rama:

June 23, 2012 Maddow: Without unions, ‘Democrats do not have a way to compete’ [VIDEO]
So [government sector unions] they go away — in terms of whether or not that corporate money that’s disproportionately supporting Republicans can be answered — at least on the Democratic side, before there is some kind of reform, Democrats do not have a way to compete in terms of big outside money in elections. And that is the reality now in Wisconsin. It is the reality in states where they have essentially eliminated unions rights...I think, structurally, that’s a pretty dire electoral situation for Democrats.”

Indeed, Ms. Maddow.

Views shift little after Obama backs gay marriage (First Gay President flops at changing minds)

Times Online ^ | 6/22/12 | ennifer Agiesta and AP writer Josh Lederman

President Barack Obama's endorsement of gay marriage appears to have made Americans on both sides of the issue even more entrenched in their positions, firing up his young, liberal backers and intensifying opposition from Republicans and conservatives, according to a new poll.
Overall, his announcement last month that he supported gay marriage did little to shift the nation's views on the subject, with the country remaining evenly divided on it, the Associated Press-GfK survey found.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama's Approval in Freefall on Stagnant Economy (33% in Rasmussen poll)

Newsmax ^ | Friday, 22 Jun 2012 12:26 PM | Paul Schicchitano

As consumers get some welcome relief from painful gasoline prices heading into the Fourth of July holiday, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings on his handling of the economy have also taken a dip for the same reason: worsening economic conditions.
Just 33 percent of Americans now believe the president is doing a “good” or “excellent” job when it comes to the economy, according to a Rasmussen poll.
That’s down from 41 percent at the beginning of May, which could be yet another sign that the president’s re-election chances are tied more to the economy than to any other political issue.
“This election is more than just a referendum on President Obama. It is a referendum on his handling of the economy,” declares Political analyst and Democratic pollster Doug Schoen in an exclusive interview with Newsmax on Friday.
InsiderAdvantage head and pollster Matt Towery agrees with Schoen’s assessment. “Regardless of what poll you’re looking at, the president’s not doing well in the economy in terms of just dealing with the economy.” …
“Gas prices are the political football of the world and they generally never mean anything,” said Towery. “What they’re concerned about is people don’t have any money in their pocket.” …
U.S. manufacturing grew at its slowest pace in 11 months in June and the number of Americans filing new applications for unemployment aid fell only slightly last week. …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...