Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The biggest scandal in U.S. history

Ann Coulter explains how Dems' '90% lie' tied into Fast and Furious

Forget executive privilege, contempt of Congress, Fast and Furious, how many documents the government has produced and who said what to whom on which date.

The Obama administration has almost certainly engaged in the most shockingly vile corruption scandal in the history of the country, not counting the results of Season Eight on “American Idol.”

Administration officials intentionally put guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, so that when the guns taken from Mexican crime scenes turned out to be American guns, Democrats would have a reason to crack down on gun sellers in the United States.

Democrats will never stop trying to take our guns away. They see something more lethal than a salad shooter and wet themselves.

But since their party was thrown out of Congress for the first time in nearly half a century as a result of passing the 1994 “assault weapons ban,” even liberals know they’re going to need a really good argument to pass any limitation on guns ever again.

So it’s curious that Democrats all started telling the same lie about guns as soon as Obama became president. In March 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced to reporters on a trip to Mexico: “Since we know that the vast majority, 90 percent of that weaponry (used by Mexican drug cartels), comes from our country, we are going to try to stop it from getting there in the first place.”

As she sentimentally elaborated on Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren show: “The guns sold in the United States, which are illegal in Mexico, get smuggled and shipped across our border and arm these terrible drug-dealing criminals so that they can outgun these poor police officers along the border and elsewhere in Mexico.”

Suddenly that 90 percent statistic was everywhere. It was like the statistic on women beaten by their husbands on Super Bowl Sunday.

CBS’ Bob Schieffer asked Obama on “Face the Nation”: “It’s my understanding that 90 percent of the guns that they’re getting down in Mexico are coming from the United States. We don’t seem to be doing a very good job of cutting off the gun flow. Do you need any kind of legislative help on that front? Have you, for example, thought about asking Congress to reinstate the ban on assault weapons?”

At a Senate hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States.”

And then, thanks to Fox News – the first network to report it – we found out the 90 percent figure was complete bunkum. It was a fabrication told by William Hoover, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF), and then spread like wildfire by Democrats and the media.

Mexican law enforcement authorities send only a fraction of the guns they recover from criminals back to the U.S. for tracing. Which guns do they send? The guns that have U.S. serial numbers on them. It would be like asking a library to produce all their Mark Twain books and then concluding that 90 percent of the books in that library are by Mark Twain.

You begin to see why the left hates Fox News so much.

Obama backed away from the preposterous 90 percent claim. His National Security Council spokesman explained to Fox News that by “recovered,” they meant “guns traceable to the United States.” So, in other words, Democrats were frantically citing the amazing fact that almost all the guns traceable to the U.S. were … traceable to the U.S.

Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters that even if the percentage is inaccurate, the “vast majority” of guns seized in crimes in Mexico come from the United States. And he should know, because it turns out he was sending them there!

Apart from the guns Holder was giving them, this was an absurd claim. Most of the guns used by drug cartels are automatic weapons – not to mention shoulder-fired rockets – that can’t be sold to most Americans. They are acquired from places like Russia, China and Guatemala.

Right about the time the 90 percent lie was unraveling, the Obama administration decided to directly hand thousands of American guns over to Mexican criminals. Apart from the fact that tracking thousands of guns into Mexico is not feasible or rational, the dumped guns didn’t have GPS tracing devices on them, anyway. There is no conceivable law enforcement objective to such a program.

This is what we know:

1. Liberals thought it would be a great argument for gun control if American guns were ending up in the hands of Mexican criminals;
2. They wanted that to be true so badly, Democrats lied about it;
3. After they were busted on their lie, the Obama administration began dumping thousands of guns in the hands of Mexican criminals.

We also know that hundreds of people were murdered with these U.S.-government-supplied guns, including at least one American, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

But let’s look on the bright side. The BATF was originally going to ship warheads to Iran until realizing the explosions might disable the tracking devices.

(Contrary to more Democratic lies, there was no such program to dump thousands of guns in Mexico under George W. Bush. The Bush administration did have a program that put GPS trackers on about 100 guns in order to actually trace them. That operation was ended almost as soon as it began because of the lack of cooperation from Mexican officials. You may as well say Holder’s program was “started” by the first cop who ever put tracer dye on contraband.)

No one has explained what putting 2,500 untraceable guns in the hands of Mexican drug dealers was supposed to accomplish.

But you know what that might have accomplished? It would make the Democrats’ lie retroactively true – allowing them to push for the same gun restrictions they were planning when they first concocted it. A majority of guns recovered from Mexican criminals would, at last, be American guns, because Eric Holder had put them there.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, some brave whistleblower inside the government leaked details of this monstrous scheme. As soon as Congress and the public demanded answers, Holder clammed up. He just says “oops” – and accuses Republicans of racism.

Team Obama's Brother Sharpton Moment 

By: Michelle Malkin  / Townhall.com


Attorney General Eric Holder's people have no shame. After months of stonewalling, misinformation and petulant disregard for the victims of the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal, President Obama's Justice Department is hiding behind the most despicable race-card demagogues on the planet. "Post-racial" America never looked so bitter, clingy and cowardly.
 
At a Tuesday press conference in Washington, D.C., human shield Al Sharpton condemned the upcoming House vote on a contempt motion against Holder as "reckless" and "morally reprehensible." Yes, the infamous hate-crimes hoaxer, cop-basher and riot incitement specialist is now the self-appointed sheriff of Capitol Hill morality. A Huffington Post report hyping Sharpton's protection racket decried the contempt citation as an "assault on minority rights." In typical race-baiting style, Sharpton told the leftwing website: "I'm not saying that this is because Holder is black, and I'm not calling (Republicans) racists. I'm saying what they're doing has a racial effect."

Of course Sharpton's accusing Republicans of racism -- and by extension, he's smearing every American demanding truth and justice in Obama's bloodiest scandal. That includes the family of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, whose December 2011 death came at the hands of a Mexican thug wielding a Fast and Furious weapon. What about the Mexican government officials left in the dark about the deadly operation? And the hundreds of families of Mexican victims of Fast and Furious-enabled bloodshed? Yes, yes, they are all racists and minority vote suppression advocates, too.

Sharpton forged ahead, comparing the effort to hold Holder accountable for his serial delays and deception to racial profiling. The race-hustling reverend invoked driving-while-black imagery in lambasting the Republican oversight staffers who have "stopped and frisked" Holder, the nation's first black attorney general, "without probable cause" to be "made an example of."

While he regurgitated DOJ talking points about Holder's "unprecedented" level of cooperation, Sharpton neglected to mention that the agency has delivered less than 8 percent of the 80,000 documents sought by congressional investigators. He forgot to acknowledge that of the 70 DOJ officials involved in Fast and Furious, 48 have been blocked by DOJ from testifying. He failed to detail the withdrawn Feb. 4, 2011, letter to Congress falsely denying the existence of Fast and Furious, Holder's flip-flops over what he knew and when, and Holder's blame-shifting assertion, withdrawn last week, that falsely accused former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey of being briefed on a separate gunwalking operation.

Lest we forget, the White House's racial guardian and MSNBC host is the same bigoted clown who manufactured the Tawana Brawley fake hate crime and tried to frame police officers, railed against "Chinamen," "Greek homos" and "n****rs," inveighed against Jewish "diamond merchants," and stoked black mobs at white-owned Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem, which was burned to the ground in 1995 after protesters broke in and gunned down four employees.

Team Obama can no more dissociate itself from Sharpton's bloody legacy than Sharpton can dissociate himself from his own poisonous tongue. In return for his blind and tireless defense over the past year and a half, Holder has publicly embraced Sharpton and endorsed his toxic racial smokescreen. In April, Holder lavished praise on Sharpton "for your partnership, your friendship and your tireless efforts to speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless and to shine a light on the problems we must solve and the promises we must fulfill." Obama himself addressed Sharpton's spring convention, as did several other Cabinet secretaries. White House visitor logs show more than a dozen entries for "Al Sharpton" or "Alfred Sharpton" over the past three years.

President Clinton had his Sister Souljah moment: a public attempt in 1992 to distance Democrats from radical racial demagoguery. The current White House has turned that centrist maneuver on its head, and American voters of good will shouldn't forget it. Obama's Brother Sharpton moment, a calculated deflection from the Fast and Furious scandal, is an unrepentant bear hug of racial extremism. Shame, shame, shame.
JWHeaderAS3
Which is worse: Jihad terror or “Islamophobia”?
by Robert Spencer

 “Which is the more serious problem today: Islamic extremism or anti-Islamic bigotry?”

This is the question Reason magazine’s Cathy Young asks in a new piece on “Islamophobia.” Young long ago demonstrated that she had no understanding of the nature or magnitude of the jihad threat, and tended to blame those who were calling attention to it rather than the real perpetrators. So it is no surprise that she would now be fronting for the manipulative Muslim Brotherhood coinage of “Islamophobia,” which is designed to guilt-trip people into being afraid to resist jihad, but in a new piece, “Young: Islam navigates shoals of extremism,” published last week in Newsday, she rises to a whole new level of Useful Idiocy.

So which really is worse? Well, let’s see. All genuine bigotry is absolutely unacceptable, but in fact, Muslims are rarely its victims. FBI statistics show that there is no “Islamophobia.” Contrary to media emphases and preoccupations, many “anti-Muslim hate crimes” have been faked by Muslims, and Jews are eight times more likely than Muslims to be the victims of hate attacks.

And as for “Islamic extremism,” recent jihad plotters include Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; Nidal Hasan, the successful Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer; Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber.

All of them and many others invoked the Qur’an and Sunnah to explain and justify their deeds. But as far as Cathy Young is concerned, it is hard to tell whether they represent a greater threat than a virtually non-existent anti-Muslim bigotry.
Many American Muslims stress the importance of combating not only anti-Muslim bigotry but extremism in Muslim ranks. The modernization of Islam is an essential priority for the world. Right-wing Islamophobes such as bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are hostile to this effort, insisting that Islam is beyond reform and any talk of moderation is a deceptive smoke screen.
Which American Muslims “stress the importance of combating not only anti-Muslim bigotry but extremism in Muslim ranks”? The main Muslim advocacy groups in the U.S., such as Hamas-linked CAIR, focus exclusively on painting resistance to jihad and Islamic supremacism as “anti-Muslim bigotry,” and never do a single thing to fight “extremism in Muslim ranks.” I have no idea who Cathy Young might mean, outside of Jasser and Manji, both of whose Islam is wholly eccentric and non-traditional, and Young doesn’t say.

What is “right-wing” about fighting for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for all people before the law? Again, Young doesn’t say, but that she considers people fighting for freedom to be her enemies is telling, as is her use of the Muslim Brotherhood neologism “Islamophobia.”

Are there deceptive moderates? Of course. Hamas-linked CAIR portrays itself as moderate. So do Boy Reza Aslan and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Does this mean that any and every attempt to reform Islam is insincere and deceptive, and should be met with hostility? Of course not, and I have never suggested such a thing. But as I have said many times, a genuine reform in Islam would acknowledge what needs to be reformed, not deny its existence, and violence and supremacism are deeply entrenched within mainstream Islam. Young is equating realism about the prospects of Islamic reform with “Islamophobia” -- very well, then: I ask her to produce evidence of this genuine reform of which she speaks. But she won’t, because she can’t.

Cathy Young is nothing special. She is just another herd thinker, thinking all of today’s conventional thoughts. The problem is that she is offering false hope that will lull people into further complacency about the jihad, and damaging the efforts of those who are trying to protect the freedoms she enjoys. If anyone remembers her at all, history will judge her and her ilk with extreme harshness.
Op-ed:
Thursday’s only the start...there’s more surprises to come
By: Diane Sori

As the saying goes, "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero

While all our attention is focused on the big events due out of DC on Thursday (the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare and Eric Holder’s contempt of Congress vote), let’s not forget there is another major incident that we must NOT lose focus on...the security leaks supposedly coming from this White House.

As if Eric Holder doesn’t have enough problems, yesterday a group of 31 senators from both sides of the aisle put pressure on him by presenting a letter demanding the appointment of a special ‘independent’ counsel to oversee the investigation into who leaked sensitive intelligence information (including possible U.S. involvement in cyber-attacks on Iran and an al Qaeda plot to place an explosive device aboard a US bound flight) that put the lives of our citizens, our troops, and our allies in danger. 

And when uber liberal Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, joins in and says that she too is “deeply disturbed by the continuing leaks of classified information to the media,” Holder and Obama should know they are in deep doo-doo.

Holder continues to resist setting up a special ‘independent’ counsel (this from the same man who won’t turn over subpoenaed documents), and that in and of itself raises red flags, and that could be why the senators also let it be clearly known that a congressional investigation may be needed if an independent council, with ‘independent’ being the key word, is not set-up.

Why an independent council and NOT the Department of Justice, who would normally investigate things such as this?  Why...because the security leaks are not a single, isolated instance but are a multitude of leaks on major national security matters, and as such cannot be trusted to be investigated in a fair and straight forth manner by the DOJ.  If the DOJ did indeed conduct the investigation it would be like Obama and his administration investigating themselves, and you know that if that was the case NO ONE would be found guilty.

A few weeks ago Obama condemned the leaks saying, "We're dealing with issues that can touch on the safety and the security of the American people, our families, or our military personnel or our allies.” "We don't play with that, and it is a source of consistent frustration, not just for my administration, but for previous administrations when this stuff happens.” 

He went on in his bloviating saying that he promises that any in his administration found guilty would suffer consequences.

Yeah right...like ‘We the People’ trust or believe anything he says.  And what consequences would those found guilty suffer...maybe a week of ‘healthy’ dinners prepared by Michelle (insert sarcasm here).

Come on Obama, we all know NOTHING would happen as you probably, in my humble opinion, gave the go ahead to leak the information yourself!  Or at best you deliberately declassified information that should NOT have been declassified in the first place, thus allowing it to be released for political expediency because your poll numbers continue to drop.

And remember, you are famous for siding with our enemies instead of with our country or our military.

So my friends, as we all sit and nervously wait for Thursday’s rulings to come down, let’s NOT forget that the leaking of classified intelligence secrets, possibly by our own ‘enemy within,’ could very well be the mother lode of Barack Hussein Obama’s betrayal of not only our country but of ‘We the People’ as well.

Can you say traitor...