Homeland Security misled the public and the Congress in regards to the scope of their policy which dismissed hundreds of pending illegal immigration hearings, thereby granting defacto amnesty to those aliens, who were released allowed to return to their lives without repercussions for their actions. So says this story which is based on internal memos which were released on a FOIA request.
The Department of Homeland Security and ICE adopted a policy of priority which allowed hundreds of illegal aliens to walk free if they had committed no other crime. While I understand placing cases in which illegal aliens had committed additional crimes ahead of cases where the illegal aliens did not commit an additional crime, the fact remains that a crime was committed the moment that these people snuck across the border. While these people should have a lower priority, these cases never should have been dismissed outright. In effect the United States government has granted these illegal aliens amnesty with their unwillingness to try them for their actions and deport them when called for.
In his radio address over the weekend, Barack Obama proposed a special “partnership” between the government and several private industries. This would allot money from the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Homeland Security, Energy and Defense to “co-invest with industry” on certain products.
Starting this summer, the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce and other agencies will coordinate a government-wide effort to leverage their existing funds and future budgets, with an initial goal of $300 million, to co-invest with industry in innovative technologies that will jumpstart domestic manufacturing capability essential to our national security and promote the long-term economic viability of critical U.S. industries,” said the White House statement. “Initial investments include small high-powered batteries, advanced composites, metal fabrication, bio-manufacturing, and alternative energy, among others
New Hampshire governor will allow the state budget to become law without his signature
In an effort to play both sides of the fence, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch will allow the recently passed budget proposal to become law without his signature. Here is what he had to say about the budget and his decision to let is pass via his non-action:
This is not a budget I can endorse, and I believe the people of New Hampshire deserve and expect better,” Lynch said, criticizing what he called “simplistic cuts” to colleges, hospitals and social services
However, a veto, which would likely be overridden by the GOP, had the potential to create what Lynch called “chaos in state government,” in the ensuing partisan battle.
I do not buy the governor’s excuse about a possible veto override vote having the potential to cause “chaos in state government,” as being the reason for his decision. This budget passed with a veto proof majority and I find it highly unlikely that the override vote would not go swiftly and would likely occur without incident. I believe that Governor Lynch understands that these cuts must be made and while he is afraid to put his name on the budget he knows that the budget is in the best interest of the state.
The Republicans won majorities in the House, Senate, and Executive Council in 2010 based on the promises of reducing spending and cutting taxes, and with the budget agreement they reached earlier this week they have made good on those promises. Over the last four years the state budget, under Governor Lynch and a Democrat controlled legislature, has aggressively grown by 25% and included multiple tax and fee increases; this budget reduces state spending by 11% and reduces the cigarette tax, and gets rid of the outrageous surcharge that has been applied to vehicle registrations over the last two years.
Governor John Lynch claims that he opposes this new budget deal, but he will let this budget become law without his signature anyway. This is his way of making a tough decision while at the same time placating his base. He knows that this budget is a step in the right direction for New Hampshire, but he also knows that the statists which form the Democrat base will never accept his signature on this legislation, so he is taking the easy way out. The bill will become law because of his inaction, yet at the same time he will be able to tell his base that he didn’t approve of–or sign–this legislation even though his non-action leads to the same result as his signature.
When the Republicans were swept back into office in 2010 I labeled John Lynch a GINO–Governor in name only–because the Republicans gained veto-proof majorities and looking at the way the events played out in this one case alone we can see that Governor Lynch is indeed a GINO who will be subjected to the will of the Republicans who are really in charge.
A comment in the article which I linked to above stated: “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” That sums up the whole budget debate, the Republicans took the lead and Governor Lynch followed. In 2012 it will be time for him to get out of the way.
Gunrunner: ATF head “resisting” the pressure to resign
As I wrote about here, it looks as though the Department of Justice is looking to make the acting head of the ATF, Kenneth Melson, the fall guy for the botched operation which left border patrol agent Brian Terry dead. Kenneth Melson is being pressured to resign in disgrace for Operation Fast and Furious, but I find it highly unlikely that an operation of this magnitude was not authorized from someone much higher than Melson, and so does Darrell Issa who is claiming that Kenneth Melson’s resignation is not enough because this scandal goes higher up.
It is now being reported in this story that Kenneth Melson is resisting the calls for his resignation and is actually looking forward to testifying in front of the Congress about his role in the scandal.
He is saying he won’t go,” said one source close to the situation, who asked for anonymity because high-level discussions with Melson remained fluid. “He has told them, ‘I’m not going to be the fall guy on this.’ ”
Added a second source, who also requested anonymity: “He’s resisting. He does not want to go.”
Kenneth Melson has an open invitation to testify in front of the Congress, but he has yet to do so. If he is so adamant about his willingness to testify in front of the Congress why has he failed to do so?
he has not been given Justice Department approval to appear before Congress.
Isn’t that interesting? Eric Holder has not given Kenneth Melson permission to testify in front of the Congress, why do you suppose that is? Darrell Issa has claimed that the Department of Justice is involved in a coverup of Operation Gunrunner and now it is being reported that the DOJ is not allowing Melson the opportunity to testify or to clear his name while at the same time trying to pressure him to resign before he can tell his story.
I think it is pretty evident that Kenneth Melson was not the man who authorized this operation, he was simply following orders; I also think that it is fairly evident that the DOJ is trying to make Melson the fall guy in the hopes that this will relieve the pressure being placed on the department, and satisfy the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. And I think that he will testify in front of the Congress that this is the case; Eric Holder is scared to death to let this happen because there is the real likelihood that Melson could point the finger at Eric Holder or Barack Obama.
The Department of Justice is trying to stop justice from being served because in this case it is the Justice Department which is to blame for authorizing the operation which killed Brian Terry. Eric Holder is desperately trying to hold onto his job and the mere fact that he will not allow Kenneth Melson his day in front of the Congress is all the proof that I need that this scandal goes all the way to the top.
Today was an interesting–albeit contradictory–day in the Congress. The House voted against giving the president the authority to continue the war in Libya by a vote of 295-123, with 70 Democrats voting against the war. But this resolution has no teeth and the war in Libya will continue. The Congress did vote on a resolution which did have teeth–defunding the war effort–but that vote failed.
Here is what Dennis Kucinich had to say about today’s vote against the president:
“Congress today voted overwhelmingly against authorizing the war,” said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat who has led anti-war forces in the House
The Congress overwhelmingly voted against authorizing the war yet they voted to continue funding the war. While they voted against the war, they are still enabling the president to fight the war, so in reality what good did these votes do? By voting to fund the war they, in effect, voted to overturn their previous disapproval of the war and in fact voted in favor of continuing the war.
This has all the makings of political posturing. The House members were able to vote on these two bills in order to get their votes on record for the upcoming election, but nothing is going to change. These members were able to vote on these two resolutions in a manner which would be politically expedient to them while at the same time allowing the war to rage on. If the Congress was serious in their opposition to the war in Libya they would have voted to defund the war, but they did not do so. They are trying to play both sides of the fence and they do not feel as if the American people are smart enough to see their duplicity.
The Congress claims to oppose the president on this issue, but they did not have the balls to do anything about it. Barack Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act with his ludicrous claim that bombing a sovereign nation with the goal of removing that country’s leader does not constitute hostilities, and the Congress claims they are offended by this explanation, but when push came to shove they didn’t do anything about it.
Barack Obama needs to step before the Congress and explain to the American people why he is justified in conducting a war against Libya without the approval of the Congress, and the Congress had the opportunity to force the president’s hand but they punted on this issue.
Yesterday was a very busy day in the State House in New Hampshire so I thought I would take a little time to recap the events for anyone who might be interested.
First; The New Hampshire House and Senate agreed on a new two year budget which includes an 11% cut in state spending with no tax or fee increases. Considering the fact that the Democrat controlled legislature of the last four years passed budgets which increased state spending by 25% and included many tax and fee increases, this is a huge step in the right direction. This budget also cuts the tobacco tax. The bill now goes to the governor’s desk for action and it is unclear whether Governor Lynch will sign the budget or veto it. To Governor Lynch’s credit, he did propose a budget which would cut state spending, but this budget cuts an additional $500 million from his proposal.
By a vote of 3-2 (all Republicans) the Executive Council voted to cut off all funding for Planned Parenthood in the state. Because the Executive Council voted to cut off funding Planned Parenthood no further action is necessary; no New Hampshire taxpayer dollars will not be spent on this organization. Needless to say, I consider this a huge victory.
Video: How do you like me now?
I saw this video at Conservative Hideout and at Reaganite Republican and thought that I would share it here as well. It is about Barack Obama’s legacy and I think it sums it up quite well.
Back in 2007 President Bush made the egregious error of signing the legislation which would ban the incandescent light bulb. The gradual phase out of these lightbulbs was set to begin on January 1st 2012 with the 100 watt bulb being the first to obtain contraband status, with the total banning of these threats to the planet being completed by 2014. How the hell a man claiming to be a conservative could ever go along with such a big government, nanny state overreach as this is something that I have never quite been able to figure out.
With the deadline looming on these lightbulbs the pushback has begun as the Texas legislature has passed a bill which would allow the incandescent lightbulbs to be manufactured in Texas despite the federal law; it is now headed to Governor Perry’s desk for further action. And now we are learning that the House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, Fred Upton, is leading the charge in the House to overturn the ban, and in fact he feels as if he is very close to getting the votes needed to do just that.
Of course Fred Upton actually sponsored the bill which President Bush signed banning these lightbulbs in the first place, so here we have another example of a politician who glommed onto the global warming scam when it was trendy only to back away from it now that it has been debunked. He saw a political opportunity to do something to save the planet back in 2007–as did George W Bush–and so he acted without regard for the American people because he thought it was politically expedient to do so.
The result of this legislation is an unconstitutional encroachment on freedom loving Americans all across the nation who find it offensive that the government feels they have the right to tell us which lightbulbs we can and cannot use. We are living in an age where the government feels they have the authority to tell us what we must purchase–healthcare insurance–and what we can no longer purchase–lightbulbs–and it is beyond time for these usurpations of our freedoms and our rights come to an end, while we still have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In my opinion this bill will likely pass the House, but the problem is that there is still a Democrat majority in the Senate filled with warmists, and a president who has bought wholeheartedly into the warmist theology so in the end it is highly likely that the lightbulb will still be offered up to the earth gods as an offering as a sign of contrition for the sins of the people.
Calling for “tax reforms” as a crucial part of balancing the budget Timothy Geithner went on to say that passing a budget deal on spending cuts alone was “irresponsible.” We all know that when the federal government talks about “tax reforms” what they are referring to are tax increases, and he admits as much in this statement:
If you try to do this, the magnitude of deficit reduction we need–and we need about $4 to 5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years–to try to do that only on spending cuts in parts of the budget would be irresponsible and really not achievable politically,” said Geithner. “You can’t pass the budget without that.
“So, you need a balanced plan that has modest revenue increases through tax reform as well as some near-term spending savings and long-term entitlement reforms
Revenue increases through tax reform; that statement says it all right there, he wants to increase taxes because the government cannot quit its spending addiction. So to sum up this statement; it is irresponsible for the federal government to cut their irresponsible spending without asking the American people to pay more taxes to accommodate their irresponsible spending.
The federal government is out of control, and while this problem has been exacerbated in the last two years, it has been a problem for many, many years. From TARP to the stimulus, to the auto bailouts and on, the federal government has increased its spending exponentially in the last several years and now that they can no longer pay their bills they are looking at the American people as an ATM machine and will ask us to “sacrifice” yet again for their shortfalls by making another withdrawal, and in my opinion that is what is irresponsible.
Of course the hypocrisy here is astounding when you take into account that Timothy Geithner is a tax cheat himself; as if Charlie Rangel (who writes tax law), John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Bill Richardson, Hilda Solis, Ron Kirk, as well as other Obama would be cabinet appointees who were forced to withdraw under tax clouds. Considering that Joe Biden claimed paying taxes was the patriotic thing to do (he must have missed that whole revolution thingy) it is interesting that these people actively tried to shun their patriotic duty.
No wonder Timothy Giethner is for higher taxes, he doesn’t bother to pay them so it won’t effect him in the least. When he speaks of being irresponsible I suppose he knows of which he speaks, for that is exactly what he is.
As I wrote about here yesterday, it is being reported that under intensifying pressure the acting head of the ATF, Kenneth Melso, will offer his resignation for his role in the growing Operation Gunrunner scandal. Melson is being offered up as the sacrificial lamb–the fall guy–bu either Barack Obama or Eric Holder, maybe both, in the hope that this will satiate the public and relieve the pressure Darrell Issa is applying to the Department of Justice.
It was my fear that this news would satisfy Darrell Issa and he would stop further inquiry into the Department of Justice, but Darrell Issa has already accused Eric Holder of a coverup in the Operation Gunrunner scandal and it now appears as if he is ready to continue his investigation into the Department of Justice and the Obama regime.
While claiming that Melson “should lose his job” he still maintains the prerogative that this order came from someone higher than he and he is determined to get to the bottom of the Gunrunner scandal. Darrell Issa admits that the plan probably originated in the ATF but that someone in the DOJ had to have approved it before the plan went into operation; he also stated that a federal judge must have also given permission for the wiretaps which were used during Operation Gunrunner.
Here is what Darrel Issa had to say about Eric Holder on television earlier today:
Attorney General Eric Holder “should have known – I believe it was his obligation to know” what was going on at ATF, Issa said. Holder wasn’t doing his job properly if he didn’t know
He is exactly right in this assertion for there are only three possible scenarios which I can come up with in regards to Eric Holder’s role in the scandal.
- Eric Holder knew about the program and lied when he was asked about it
- Eric Holder did not know about the program
- Eric Holder authorized the program
None of these scenarios shine a positive light on Eric Holder; if he knew about the program and he lied about it, he purposely was involved in a coverup and should resign for trying to hide the truth. If he did not know the truth then Darrell Issa is absolutely correct when he stated that Eric Holder wasn’t doing his job and should resign as a result. And if Eric Holder did in fact authorize Operation Gunrunner than he should be held at least partially responsible for the death of Brian Terry, as well as all of the other crimes committed with these weapons, as well as lying about his role in the scandal, and he should resign in this scenario as well.
In my Read more…
America's Watchtower 