27 Haziran 2012 Çarşamba

Vote PASSES, Eric Holder in CONTEMPT - Obama Executive Privilege & "Evolving Truth" No Good in Fast and Furious - Dems Want Gun Control

To contact us Click HERE
House Oversight Committee Has Just Passed a Resolution 23 to 17 Holding Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt for not releasing fast and furious documents.  
 The Contempt Charge now goes to the entire House for a vote on holding Holder in Contempt before it is sent to prosecution.
The committee even passed an amendment with many reasons why Obama's executive privilege is not valid

The Committee hearing was very interesting. The Democrats, like Reps Towns and Rep Norton, tried to say that the Committee should give more time to Eric Holder because Holder is willing to work with the committee to release some documents.

The Committee Chairman, Rep Issa, made clear that the Committee had given plenty of time to Holder and has been very lenient and even had staff stay up all night waiting for the documents. Issa said that no one is above the law.

The Committee meeting was very long and there were many arguments back and forth. Below are some of the highlights from the meeting:

Congressman Chaffets quotes President Obama from when Obama first got into office about transparency. Chaffets quoted Obama from when Obama said that his administration would be completely transparent and would allow freedom of information requests even when the information requested might be embarrassing.

Chaffets said we have thousands of guns given to drug cartels. We have hundreds of people dead across the border. We have a US Border Patrol Agent dead. This is about the Department of Justice and Justice in the United States

Rep Mack said that if the Obama Administration and the Justice Department were so willing to get this info out then there would not have been a last minute letter from President Obama to claim executive privilege to hide the documents.

Rep Kucinich said that now that Obama has claim executive privilege then the committee should not go forward with contempt.

Chairman Issa said that Kucinich did and probably everyone on his side of the isle probably voted to hold Harriet Miers in contempt even though Bush had used executive privilege.

Rep Walberg said that we owe it to dead border agent Brian Terry to find out the truth of what happened. He said it does not give him pleasure to have a contempt vote but it has to be done. He said that Obama's evolving truth is not good enough. He said the Justice Department said they would give the committee a fair compilation but then Eric Holder would be in control of what documents should or should not go into that compilation.

Rep Lankford said that If the Department of Justice asked for documents, no US Attorney would allow 7 months to pass before getting the documents. No US Attorney would allow someone to decide which documents get turned over to the DOJ and they would not allow someone to tell them to that instead of getting documents they will instead get an explanation of the documents. Congress was given false statements from the DOJ. One month the DOJ tells Congress that they did not allow guns to go into Mexico and that was found to be untrue. This same DOJ is supposed to be investigating security leaks. It is important for Congress to find out the facts of what happened.

Rep Buerkle said that Brian Terry has been dead for over 500 days now and still no one has been held responsible. She said that this committee is responsible for finding the truth. Holder has not provided requested documents and he has been given time and has dodged questions. The lack of transparency regarding the death of a federal agent is sickening and the last minute effort to use executive privilege is sickening. What is being hidden? Are there more people dead that we don't know of?

Rep Connolly talked about Kangaroo courts and said we need more gun control and an assault rifle ban instead of a contempt vote.

Rep Meehan said this is not about Kangaroos, this is about a dead border patrol agent. He said Congress was lied to by the DOJ and could not get answers from the DOJ. There is a series of questions that need to be answered and there was knowledge of this program in the highest levels.

Rep Jordan said the committee just wants the information. These documents were requested 8 months ago and it was not until today did the President try to use executive privilege. Rep Jordan said that executive privilege only applies to communication with the President. Rep Jordan said that Eric Holder sat in front of the committee and said there was never any communication with President Obama about this.

Rep Gowdy did a passionate emotional speech about the high level officials in the DOJ knowing about this gun walking program before Brian Terry got killed and how the committee was lied to by the DOJ about the program while at the same time the DOJ was boasting the program in Mexico. Gowdy said he does not have answers to tell his constituents when they ask him how this agent was killed and who authorized this program. He compared Senator Obama's stance on executive privilege to President Obama's stance on executive privilege. He went on to say that if Obama did not know about this program then what is he doing trying to use executive privilege to protect the information?

Rep Ross said that the American public expects accountability. He said that people need to stop blaming the Bush Administration for the current administration's mistakes and failures to release documents. He said that any gun programs (like operation wide receiver) under Bush did not result in any deaths and were not known by Bush. When Bush found out he ended the program. This is very different than Fast and Furious. Rep Gowdy followed with more passionate speech about how people need to stop blaming Bush for everything and blaming Bush does not have anything to do with Eric Holder currently not releasing documents.


Rep Speier said that gun walking still exists because anyone in America can buy guns like ak 47's that they don't need.

Before the final vote to approve a contempt resolution against Holder, the committee passed an amendment with many reasons why Obama's executive privilege is not valid. Some of the reasons include the fact that the time Obama should have claimed executive privilege was 8 months ago when Eric Holder was first called to testify, and also the fact that the president has not even claimed executive privilege and instead they have heard it from the DOJ who is not authorized to invoke the privilege.

During the hearing, the Brian Terry family sent a statement to the committee saying that Eric Holder and Obama are trying to prevent the truth from coming out about why their son was killed by Mexican drug cartel members who was allowed to have a gun by the Fast and Furious gun walking program.

MSN News Misspells Eric Holder on Frontpage (Eric Holden?) see picture here

To contact us Click HERE
Everyone wanted to be first to post up the story about Eric Holder being held in contempt by the House Oversight Committee. I did too. I got my story up within seconds of the vote passing. See my Holder Contempt story here

Mistakes happen in a rush. I make them all the time.

Major news outlets should probably have better proof readers than me though (I don't have any).

MSN posted the Holder Contempt Story on their front page.

The problem is.....

Who is Eric Holden?

haha


Don't Forget TONIGHT 8PM Cruz VS. Dewhurst US Senate Debate

To contact us Click HERE
It is Debate Night in Texas! (Friday June 22nd, 2012) Watch Ted Cruz debate David Dewhurst tonight at 8:00 PM Central! Should be a good show.

The debate will live video stream online here: http://bit.ly/PCarDQ. It will also be broadcast on other stations across Texas! Check your local listing here: http://bit.ly/LIzgiL
As you know, I (and just about all major conservative organizations and individuals) am supporting Ted Cruz for US Senator from Texas.
 I believe that Ted Cruz is the better of the two.
The big thing that drew me to Cruz is the fact that he has stood for conservative values in the Supreme Court and has won! Everything seems to end up in the Supreme Court these days and it is very important, not just to have a conservative, but a conservative who can articulate and defend our conservative values all the way to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court UPHOLDS Key AZ Immigration Law - Good for Texas Voter ID Law Supreme Court Case!

To contact us Click HERE
The United States Supreme Court struck down some parts of the Arizona Immigration Law, but the Supreme Court UPHELD a key provision (and very controversial part) of the AZ Immigration Law.

According to the Washington Post, The Supreme Court has upheld the provision in the AZ law requiring police to check the status of someone they suspect is not in the United States legally. Anyone in AZ must now "Show Me Your Papers" when asked by AZ law enforcement.

I believe that this ruling gives us a glimpse of how the Supreme Court will rule when they hear the Voter ID Law cases.

Several states (including Texas) have passed laws requiring people to show Identification when they vote. You have to show ID for EVERYTHING so why not require ID to be shown at the voting booth? Dead People are voting, non-citizens are voting, people are registering to vote multiple times using fake names. We have to make sure our elections stay free and fair. It is not unreasonable to be able to make sure people are who they say they are when they vote.

Attorney General Eric Holder has a problem with Voter ID laws. Sure, the Supreme Court has already upheld voter ID laws. Sure Eric Holder requires ID to be shown when entering a building to see Eric Holder Speak, but NO he says to Texas and South Carolina when we want ID to be shown when people vote.

I already think the Supreme Court will side with Texas on the Voter ID laws and because we have Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott fighting for us, but now I am really sure that the Court will allow Texas to require ID when voting after the Supreme Court has allowed AZ to check the citizenship status (even though Eric Holder said that is something that only the Federal Government can do). I do not believe in discrimination and I do not believe this AZ law will be used to discriminate. The police will not be able to stop someone if they think the person is here illegally. The police will be able to ask for identification and check for citizenship status ONLY if the person has already been stopped of detained for breaking the law.

The bottom line is, these laws are good. It is common sense that our elections should be secure and people should show ID when they vote, and also, if the police stop someone who is suspected of breaking the law, the police should be able to verify who the person is, including if they are in the country legally.

Watch Out Texas: Supreme Court Strikes Down Corporate Campaign Spending Limits - TX Law Changes? Good for Tom Delay?

To contact us Click HERE
Will Texas Have to Change Its Campaign Spending Law? Will Tom Delay have his Conviction Overturned?

According to the AP, the Supreme Court today has (again) ruled that corporations have the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.

The justices struck down a Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending, but this case will have a ripple effect on all other states.

Texas is a state that does not allow corporations to spend money in Texas state and local election.

In fact, former Majority Leader in the United States House of Representatives, Tom Delay, did not even give corporate money to Texas elections but he was prosecuted by a liberal from Austin simply because he give money to the RNC which possibly freed up RNC money to be given to Texas elections. Based on that, this liberal prosecutor said that Tom Delay broke Texas law by giving corporate money to Texas elections.

SOOO, not that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit corporate spending in state and local elections, will Texas have to change its laws to allow corporate spending? If not they might set themselves up for a losing battle in the Supreme Court.

Also, will this ruling have any effect on appeals that Tom Delay has made in a case where he was prosecuted for something that the Supreme Court has said is constitutionally protected?