Darrell Issa claims that the Department of Homeland Security was violating FOIA for political reasons
Darrell Issa, who is now the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, vowed during the mid-term elections that if the Republicans took over the House he would initiate investigations into many aspects of the Obama regime and the implementation of Barack Obama’s agenda. And now we may be seeing the first target of Darrell Issa’s committee, as he has requested that the Department of Homeland Security turn over documents relating to what he feels is a politicization of hundreds of FOIA requests.
According to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), requested government documents are supposed to be released as quickly as possible without political considerations being involved, but there is evidence that Janet Napolitano purposely delayed the release of documents which could hurt Barack Obama politically–in clear violation of FOIA.
Eric Holder claims Martin Luther King “planted the seeds for environmental justice”
Stating that “environmental justice” is a civil rights issue, Eric Holder claimed that Martin Luther King helped to “plant the seeds” of the “environmental justice” movement.
Dr. King, in addition to his many other achievements, helped to plant the seeds for what would become our nation’s now-thriving environmental justice movement.
He is making that claim using the words of Doctor King which the great man wrote while in jail in Birmingham, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” So how can Eric Holder make the leap from a man fighting for the equal rights of black people to the assumption that Doctor King would also support “environmental justice?” It is easy if you are Eric Holder; you simply claim that “environmental justice” is a civil rights issue.
The next logical question would be: how is global warming/climate change, cap and trade, and the environment in general an issue of civil rights? Eric Holder also has an answer for that question as well; black Americans are 80% more likely to live near areas where there is greater exposure to industrial pollution. Therefore–I suppose–black Americans are being unfairly treated by their surroundings.
What Eric Holder is doing with these comments is molding and perverting a legitimate civil rights movement and American history in an attempt to justify the Justice Department reaching into the global warming/climate change debate–an area where they have no legitimate jurisdiction.
By examining environmental requirements in conjunction with our civil rights laws, I am confident that we can do a better job of assuring fairness and advancing justice
In 2011, the burden of environmental degradation still falls disproportionately on low-income communities and communities of color, and most often on their youngest residents: our children, my children
This is unacceptable. And it is unconscionable. But through the aggressive enforcement of federal environmental laws in every community, I believe that we can – and I know that we must – change the status quo
I want you to know that – at every level of the Justice Department, just like here at the EPA – this work is a top priority,” he said, adding, “and, for me, it is also a personal calling
Eric Holder is trying to co-opt Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement in order to justify yet another over-reach by the Obama regime and I find this to be extremely distasteful; by coining the term “environmental justice” he is trying to legitimize his “personal calling” and stretch the reach of the Justice Department into an area where they have no business going in the first place.
With this news that the EPA and the Justice Department will now be working hand in hand to ensure “environmental justice” we are beginning to see an unprecedented consolidation of power in Washington DC. No longer does the Obama regime have to rely on the Congress to pass his agenda, because he has extra-constitutional government agencies ready to implement his agenda by dictate, and now he has a Justice Department ready to make sure the policies are implemented–OR ELSE!
New Hampshire Republican prepares bill which would make the state Attorney General an elected official
There is a battle brewing here in New Hampshire between the newly elected Republican legislature and the Attorney General, Michael Delaney, over the healthcare reform law.
The new Republican led Congress in the state wants New Hampshire to join the other states in challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare reform legislation, but the Attorney General is reluctant to do so. The reason that he is reluctant to do so is because he was appointed by Governor John Lynch who supports the healthcare reform law and opposes challenging it in the courts.
Because of this the Republicans in the state have introduced legislation in the House that would mandate the Attorney General to challenge the healthcare reform legislation. Needless to say Michael Delaney is not too happy about this pending legislation, claiming that it violates the New Hampshire constitution’s separation of powers doctrine and would make it impossible for him to be an independent Attorney General.
I have heard it said on occasion (and especially after the shooting in Arizona) that America is more sharply divided than ever before–with the obvious exception being the Civil War–but is that really the truth or is it just more rhetoric? And even if we are sharply divided, is that necessary even a bad thing? Those are the two questions I will now attempt to answer.
Americans have always been engaged in a fight (literally and figuratively) for the future direction of the country and this began before America was even a country. Even when war broke out between the colonies and the Crown there were differing opinions–not only about whether we should even be fighting against the motherland, but also about what we were actually fighting for. While the war waged on there were many who wanted to remain loyal to the Crown–after all, they still felt that Britain offered them more freedom than any other nation on earth and they found it treasonous to engage in a battle against her.
The Department of Homeland Security cancels the virtual fence on the Mexican border
It was announced yesterday that Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security was doing away with the “virtual fence” on the Mexican border. The “virtual fence” was President Bush’s answer to securing the border without actually building a fence or putting people on the border, and the fact is that it simply did not work. I am not saddened to hear we will no longer be wasting money on this effort.
However, the question which must be asked is this: What are we going to do about the border moving forward? According to Janet Napolitano, there are aspects of the “virtual fence” which proved to be effective and those which did are going to remain in effect. Read more…
Michael Steele out, Reince Priebus in as new head of the RNC
Today the Republicans voted for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee and at long last Michael Steele is no longer the chairman, being replaced by Reince Priebus.
A sharply divided Republican committee finally confirmed Preibus as committee chairman on the seventh ballot, while Michael Steele dropped his re-election bid after the fourth ballot. In my opinion, this was a long time in the making as I questioned whether Michael Steele should resign back in March of 2009, and then formally called for his resignation early last year.
Michael Steele became the head of the RNC under great expectations, but lackadaisical fundraising and a series of missteps turned him into an embarrassment to the Republican party. The Republicans managed to win the House of Representatives in spite of Michael Steele, not because of him. Maybe if he were a little more competent the Republicans could have taken over the Senate as well. The Republicans were able to win the House of Representatives for one reason and one reason only–the Tea Party.
Now I am not going to sit here and claim that I know anything about Reince Priebus, and I am not going to claim that this is a great choice because frankly, I don’t know enough about Priebus to make a decision as of yet. But I do know one thing, it appears as if Priebus is ready to accept the Tea Party as an important piece of the puzzle moving forward into the 2012 election:
“All of these groups will have a seat at the table when I’m chairman of the Republican National Committee,” he said at the only candidates debate Jan. 3. “We’re not in competition with the [Tea Party] movement, we’re part of it. We need unity, we need to be working together.”
And I do know one other thing: John H Sununu–the outgoing chairman of the New Hampshire GOP, and the architect of the Republicans’ historic gains in this state in the midterm elections last year–voiced his support of Priebus for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee last week, so I will accept the former governor’s intuition and knowledge on this issue and assume he knows of what he speaks, and I will assume that the GOP made a wise choice. Only time will tell.
Sarah Palin vs Barack Obama: Their differing reactions to the Arizona shooting according to Politico
Earlier today I read this article on Politico about the differing reactions between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin on the shooting in Arizona. I found the article quite interesting, here is the main crux of the article:
In the span of a single news cycle, Republicans got a jarring reminder of two forces that could prevent them from retaking the presidency in next year.
At sunrise in the East on Wednesday, Sarah Palin demonstrated that she has little interest — or capacity — in moving beyond her brand of grievance-based politics. And at sundown in the West, Barack Obama reminded even his critics of his ability to rally disparate Americans around a message of reconciliation.
Palin was defiant, making the case in a taped speech she posted online why the nation’s heated political debate should continue unabated even after Saturday’s tragedy in Tucson. And, seeming to follow her own advice, she swung back at her opponents, deeming the inflammatory notion that she was in any way responsible for the shootings a “blood libel.”
Obama, speaking at a memorial service at the University of Arizona, summoned the country to honor the victims, and especially9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, by treating one another with more respect. “I want America to be as good as Christina imagined it,” he said.
It’s difficult to imagine a starker contrast.
The article basically vilified Sarah Palin (that’s a shocker!) while extolling the virtues of Barack Obama for the way both reacted in the aftermath of the shooting. They attacked Sarah Palin for “grievance-based politics” for her reaction to the media’s reaction to the shooting. Sarah Palin was attacked by the media as well as the Prima County sheriff and was blamed for stoking the fire which led to the Arizona shooting, Barack Obama was not. It is totally understandable why Sarah Palin reacted to the media the way that she did, while Barack Obama was able to stay above the fray as he did.
The Chamber of Commerce calls for the repeal of Obamacare
Sighting ObamaCare as “unworkable,” Tom Donohue–the CEO and president of the Chamber of Commerce–is calling for the repeal of Obamacare:
By mid-December, HHS had already granted 222 waivers to the law — a revealing acknowledgement that the law is unworkable,” Donohue said. “And, with key provisions under challenge in the courts by states and others, it’s time to go back to the drawing board
I have previously written about the 222 healthcare reform waivers granted by the Obama regime here. This is what I had to say about these waivers:
The healthcare reform law would have been directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of employees losing their healthcare coverage if the waiver was not granted–the exact opposite of the stated goal of the law. Now these multi-million dollar corporations do not have to meet the federally mandated minimums for healthcare coverage. Why even have the law on the books if it is so devastating that so many companies are being granted waivers? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is turning out to be quite an embarrassment to the president.
With the Chamber of Commerce now siting these waivers as proof that Obamacare is “unworkable” I feel vindicated in my initial response to the news of these waivers. And Tom Donohue had much more to say about Obamacare:
Last year, while strongly advocating health care reform, the Chamber was a leader in the fight against this particular bill, and thus we support legislation in the House to repeal it,” Donohue said. “We see the upcoming House vote as an opportunity for everyone to take a fresh look at health care reform and to replace unworkable approaches with more effective measures that will lower costs, expand access, and improve quality
“First, we must rein in excessive regulations and reform the regulatory process,” Donohue said. “At the federal level alone, regulations already fill 150,000 pages of fine-print text and cost Americans $1.7 trillion a year.”
Donohue included the health care bill in what he called a “regulatory tsunami.”
“For example, the new health care law creates 159 new agencies, commissions, panels, and other bodies,” he said. “It grants extraordinary powers to the Department of Health and Human Services to redefine health care as we know it. When the bill passed, Americans were promised that it would lower costs and allow anyone who liked their existing coverage to keep it. Instead, costs are rising and health plans are being forced to change.
Tom Donohue is confirming many of the fears that most of us had about this legislation in the first place: We will not be able to keep our doctors or our plans, (I have already been forced to change my healthcare plan), this law is creating a giant government bureaucracy which is unsustainable, it will not lower costs, and it gives HHS expanded powers. Other than that, this is a great bill.
It is not news that the Chamber of Commerce and Barack Obama do not see eye to eye on many issues, and it is not news that Barack Obama has had the Chamber of Commerce in the crosshairs for quite some time, so it is also not surprising that the Chamber of Commerce is coming out so strongly against Barack Obama’s signature legislation.
But today the Republicans in the House of Representatives have gained a powerful ally as the momentum surges for repeal of the healthcare reform law. In the end we will not be able to repeal Obamacare until we have a new president, but the forces are lining up against the president and at least we should be able to repeal the most offensive parts of this legislation, while defunding the law, until we have the chance to rid ourselves of this monstrosity once and for all.
Shortly after Jared Loughner shot and killed six people while wounding dozens of others in Arizona the media went on a witch-hunt to see where they could lay the blame for Loughner’s actions. Personally, I would have blamed Jared Loughner and I suppose the media would have also if they weren’t being driven by their agenda.
It didn’t take long for the media to find their target and set their sights on Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, conservative talk radio, and the Tea Party; Blaming the violent, angry, hate-filled, vitriolic rhetoric that the media claims these people spew on a daily basis for driving Jared Loughner to murder. Once the narrative was set there was not stopping it in the media–station after station claimed that while nobody actually condoned or called for violence, the right’s figurative use of symbols and verbiage could easily drive an unstable person who doesn’t understand the difference between figurative talk and literal talk to act on the words that the media claimed were so carelessly spoken by the right. (Ignoring the fact that many on the left actually have called for violent revolution and assassination for the whole eight years of the Bush administration.)
Arizona passes law to ban the Westboro Baptists from protesting at the funerals of the shooting victims
I can’t even begin to express the disregard in which I hold the Westboro Baptists. This is the group of people who go around the country under the guise of Christianity and protest at the funerals of our heroes who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming that these deaths are retribution from God because of the United States’ acceptance of gays and lesbians.
While our heroes are being laid to rest, these despicable human beings shout slogans such as “God hates fags,” as well as “thank God for dead soldiers,” and “God hates the USA.” Siting their first amendment rights to free speech, the freedom of religion, and the right to peacefully protest as justification for their intolerant and despicable acts, they continue to interrupt these funerals as distraught family members try to mourn their loved ones.
What these christians fail to remember is the simple fact that those whom they are protesting died defending the rights of the Westboro Baptists to conduct such a deplorable protest in the first place. Technically they are not doing anything that is not within their rights, but I would argue that just because you have the right to do something, that doesn’t mean you should do something. This isn’t an issue of rights–much like the Ground Zero Mosque–these people have the right to do what they are doing–but rather an issue of common decency, and that is what these people are missing. In my opinion, these people should be protesting in Washington, not at the private ceremonies for fallen heroes.
But now the Westboro Baptists are planning to expand their protests.
America's Watchtower 