Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Via "What Makes Us Southern" presented at the Sam Davis Youth Camp 2012 by Roy Vandergrift III
In 1768, the people of Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, declared, "We shall ever be more ready to support the government under which we find the most liberty."
No matter whether they came from the England or Scotland or Ireland, their libertarian ideas were very much alike......
"They shun everything which appears to demand of them law and order, and anything that preaches constraint," Schoepf wrote of the backsettlers. "They hate the name of a justice, and yet they are not transgressors. Their object is merely wild. Altogether, natural freedom . . . is what pleases them."
“How can the President assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the President exert executive privilege over documents he's supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme?”
-- Senator Chuck Grassley(R-IA), June 20, 2012
Having promised that his administration would be the “most open and transparent in history,” President Barack Obama invoked executive privilege today to lock up documents that House investigators were seeking in relation to the cover-up surrounding Operation Fast & Furious.
In response, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, noting that he has consistently refused to release thousands upon thousands of subpoenaed documents.
Executive privilege has been used by Presidents in the past (all the way back to George Washington) as a mechanism to protect sensitive documents relating to things like the military, foreign powers, or the President’s power to pardon.
But today’s invoking of executive privilege was not aimed at protecting the country. Rather, it appears to be nothing more than a crass attempt to cover-up lies and misstatements made by Eric Holder and others in his department. Consider some of the following:
The Justice Department -- in a letter dated February 4, 2011 -- told Congress that the U.S. does not knowingly help smuggle guns into Mexico. The Justice Department had to retract that letter ten months later.
On May 5, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before Congress that he only learned about Fast & Furious “a few weeks ago.” Later, he had to confess that it would have been more accurate to say “a couple of months” ago -- and even that statement was dubious considering that he had received memos on Fast & Furious as far back as July, 2010.
On June 12, 2012, Attorney General Holder defiantly told Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that the Bush administration knew that guns were being smuggled into Mexico as part of a program called Operation Wide Receiver. The insinuation was that the Obama administration simply inherited a “gun walking” program that was out of control. Today, however, Holder had to retract his earlier statement that Bush officials knew about “gun walking.”
Finally, there are the leaked affidavits. As reported by John Lott today, a mole in the Justice Department gave Rep. Darrell Issa’s Oversight and Government Reform Committee a set of wiretap applications “proving that high department officials knew about the administration’s efforts to aid the gun smuggling.” As noted by Lott, this destroyed much of Holder’s credibility since he had claimed these wiretap applications were not relevant to Fast & Furious and justified his refusal to release them.
Technically speaking, executive privilege is supposed to be employed to protect deliberations where the President was personally involved. Hence, the invoking of the privilege seems to suggest that the President (or his top deputies) have known more about Fast & Furious than has heretofore been admitted by any Justice Department official.
It’s interesting that Eric Holder wanted to get immunity from Issa's committee before he would give any more paperwork to them. Having failed to get the desired immunity, Holder asked President Obama to lock up the requested documents.
One significant Senator blasted the use of executive privilege: “There’s been a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky taking place. The administration would be best served by coming clean on this.”
Ironically, that quote does not come from any Republican in the Senate, but rather from then-Sen. Barack Obama during a CNN interview on March 19, 2007.
The President has just raised the stakes as his actions today point to his involvement in either planning or covering up the fallout related to Operation Fast & Furious.
REMEMBER: Those who are close to this investigation have concluded that Operation Fast & Furious was nothing more than attempt to bring new and stronger gun control laws which would only render Americans less safe.
But the Operation blew up in their faces after hundreds of people were killed by Fast & Furious guns -- and in particular, a Border Patrol named Brian Terry in December, 2010.
ACTION: Now that Issa’s committee has voted to hold the Attorney General in contempt, it means that the full House will have to vote on the citation. So please take the following action:
1. Click here to contact your Representative and urge him to VOTE IN FAVOR OF holding the Attorney General in contempt.
2. If your Representative is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and voted in favor of the contempt citation today, thank him. If he opposed it, then blast him!
3. Circulate this alert to your friends and family!
You probably also know, by now, that Obama explicitly spoke out against executive privilege before he was president, saying "the American people need to know what's going on," in yet another classic "do as I say, not as I do" moment brought to you by the first dictator in the history of the United States.
But did you know the president has to be involved in a situation in order to invoke executive privilege?
From the files of Congress:
Under those precedents, the privilege, which is constitutionally rooted, could be invoked by the President when asked to produce documents or other materials or information that reflect presidential decisionmaking and deliberations that he believes should remain confidential.Note the emphasized language, and the grammar of the sentence that leaves no doubt that the president MUST be involved in whatever issue for which he invokes executive privilege: "when asked to produce documents or other materials or information that reflect PRESIDENTIAL DECISIONMAKING AND DELIBERATIONS.
You won't hear this from the lapdog media. But, hey, I'm just a blogger.
So, what we have here, then, is the president not only protecting Holder, he's also protecting himself.
Meanwhile, over at Think Regress (see comments), the left is rejoicing about the president's actions, once again, as leftists do, defending the indefensible.
I wonder how the president's new 800,000 voters feel about him covering up information about the murder of Mexicans.
On the day His Heinous has exerted Royal Privelege, er – ‘Executive Privelege’ to hide the documents Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to turn over to Rep. Daryl Issa’s Congressional Oversight committee’s subpoena, I am marveling at the Useful Idiots in Congress and the Media trying to cover for Obama’s cover-up of White House sanctioned murder to change the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
To me this is admission and proof that Obama himself was involved directly in the Gunwalker scandal, and legally – his office has to be involved personally in order for that royal privilege to have legal standing.
But enforcing the law is now up against a regime that says “How many Divisions does this Congressional Committee have at it’s disposal?”
The documents may show the Obama regime’s scheme and designs to walk guns to Mexican drug cartels in the hopes of killing Americans in order to change public opposition to Obama’s gun ban plans. Eric Holder, the top ‘law enforcement officer in the country’ has perjured himself on multiple occasions during the 8 months of hearings the Obama media has buried from public view.
More @ Sword At-The-Ready
A 19-year-old American Christian musician has admitted strangling Wexford student Nicola Furlong in Tokyo last month -- but insisted that he didn't mean to kill her.
The keyboard player, who graduated from High School just last year, was arrested on suspicion of murdering the 21-year-old in a hotel room on May 24.
As he is still recognised as a minor by Japanese law, his name has not been officially released.
Police suspect that he killed Ms Furlong after she refused his sexual advances, according to Japanese news agencies.
He confessed to pressing his victim's neck with his hands but said he did not mean to kill her, it has been reported.
The man was allegedly captured on CCTV wheeling Ms Furlong to his room at the Keio Plaza Hotel in the city's Shinjuku district at around 1am.
In the footage, Ms Furlong appears to be unconscious in the wheelchair. Police believe that her drink may have been spiked.
Toxicology results are expected in about a week's time.
More @ Independent.ie
A political deal will be struck to save the Democrat Party from total collapse and protect the Republican Party from revelations of complicity in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.
A growing number of Americans are now learning that Barack Obama, according to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution, is an illegal President. The law requires a candidate for the Presidency to be a "natural born citizen," that is, a second generation American, a U.S. citizen, whose parents were also U.S. citizens at the time of the candidate's birth.
Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and a British subject at the time of his birth, which made him forever ineligible for the Presidency.
Practically speaking, that issue is not a problem for Obama because the Republican Party also wants to violate the Constitution. Many Republicans are aggressively advocating Florida Senator Marco Rubio as Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential candidate. Rubio is ineligible because, even though he was born in the United States, his parents were Cuban citizens at the time of his birth.
More @ pravda
William Mayo Pippen House
The Daily Southerner
The Tarboro Fire Department responded to the Pippen House circa. 1870-1930 in the 900 block of St. Andrews Street around 6:35 a.m. Wednesday morning.
The owners of the house, Steve and Shari Redhage were home when the fire started.
Steve said he was alerted to the fire by an alarm. When the alarm was triggered the first time, he said he reset it thinking that it was a false alarm. After going through that routine about three times, he checked the back side of the house and spotted fire coming from the room that housed the hot water heater he said.
After realizing the danger, he notified his wife and son and they escaped without injuries.
"When I told my wife what was going on we got out," Steve said. "But she told me to get all the children portraits. I did.
We lost a lot of stuff but that is just stuff. It can be replaced. I'm glad that we got out safe."
Tarboro Fire Chief Billy Whitakers confirmed that the fire was likely started by the hot water heater. He said that his department had the blaze under controll within one hour. Smoke damage and water from the fire department also contributed to the damage.
With wide partisan and racial division, and a small gender gap, Florida voters support 60 - 35 percent Gov. Rick Scott's effort to purge non-citizens from the state's voter rolls, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
There are similar partisan and racial divisions, and a wider gender gap, as Sunshine State voters support 56 - 37 percent the state's "Stand Your Ground" law, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
ZeroGov: Limited Government, Unicorns and other Mythological Creatures is published and live this morning on Amazon. It will be available only as an eBook and therein lies a revolution in writing. No longer stymied and stove piped through the traditional publishing houses, books are taking a plunge into a new frontier that has been maturing since the beginning of the new century.
Once some powerful people in Washington decide that they want a war, they do not give up until they get it. The proponents of an American-led NATO intervention in Syria were on the defensive in April, when government forces were winning on the ground and the political balance inside the Beltway seemed to be favoring restraint. In May they regrouped and reconsidered their strategy. Now they are back with a vengeance.
President Obama appeared to be unenthusiastic about intervention, as was apparent during his meeting with Vladimir Putin at Los Cabos on June 18 when his remarks fell short of demanding President Bashar al-Assad’s removal from power. His more hawkish rhetoric at home indicates that he was merely trying not to irritate Putin by explicitly demanding regime change.
By now the proponents of Operation Syrian Freedom have put together four key ingredients needed for the pendulum to swing their way:
- Atrocity management is the key: the staged slaughter of civilians in Houla by the rebels last month, reminiscent of similar stunts in the Balkans—notably the Račak “massacre” that preceded the U.S.-led NATO war against Serbia in 1999—produced exactly the kind of reaction its perpetrators were hoping for. More similar incident are likely to follow.
- Misrepresentation of the insurgency as a fully-fledged civil war between two sides—one virtuous, the other unredeemably evil—is all but complete. Once the misnomer “civil war” is routinely used and accepted as accurate, it becomes easier to advocate intervening on the “good” side in that war. Arming the insurgents and helping them with air power is also possible—that was done in Libya—but the political consensus-building is more difficult this time.
- The assertion that intervention is a moral imperative and a test of American “leadership,” which the rest of the world supposedly hopes for and expects, is equally predictable. The narrative has been developing since Gulf War I and it matured under Clinton. Only the names of villains and victims need to be filled in.
- Last but not least, there is the claim that intervention is a geopolitical necessity, because the Russians are already involved by arming government forces and because a regime change in Damascus would be a blow to Iran’s position in the region. Nothing to do with the Syrian people, even though they would be the ones to pay the price of intervention in blood, like their Iraqi neighbors have done.
This last point is particularly worthy of attention, in view of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deliberate misrepresentation of facts regarding the delivery of Russian helicopters to the Syrian government. On June 12 Clinton expressed concern over the alleged sale of Russian helicopters to Syria, saying that if the Syrian government got possession of such lethal weapons, it “will escalate the conflict quite dramatically.”
The Russians replied that the helicopters had been sold and delivered to Syria a long time ago, that they were sent to Russia for refurbishing and were now being shipped back. On June 13 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia was merely fulfilling its contractual obligations, signed and paid for long before the outbreak of the rebellion. He went on to allude to U.S. sales of arms to Bahrain—which faces latent unrest following last year’s protests that ended in bloodshed—by saying, “We are not supplying to Syria or anywhere else things that are used in fighting with peaceful demonstrators, in contrast to the United States, which is regularly sending such special means to countries in the region. For some reason, the Americans consider this to be in order.”
Victoria Nuland, spokesperson for the US State Department, effectively confirmed the Russian version and contradicted her boss when she declared on June 14 that “these are helicopters that have been out of the fight for some six months or longer. They are freshly refurbished.” An anonymous senior Pentagon official told The New York Times that Clinton had “exaggerated a little bit”—that is, lied—in order “to put the Russians in a difficult situation.”
For a Madam Secretary to lie is nothing new: Madeleine Albright did it routinely in the 1990s to justify the Bosnian intervention and the war against the Serbs. For her current successor to resort to falsehoods in order to provoke the Russians is remarkable, however, especially as it happened less than a week ahead of last Monday’s meeting between Obama and Putin. There are three possible explanations: that she was misinformed, which is unlikely; that she was acting on her own accord, which is possible; or that she was deliberately raising tension over Syria, which is most probable.
The Russians responded by announcing they would send two warships and a support vessel to the Syrian port of Tartus, where Russia maintains her only naval base in the Mediterannean. A Russian navy official said the ships will carry an unspecified number of marines, supposedly to protect Russians in Syria if necessary. Each ship is capable of carrying up to 300 marines and a dozen tanks. That would make it the largest known Russian troop deployment to Syria to date.
Once the “civil war” paradigm is in place, the next stage of the escalation is predictable: Saudi Arabia and the Emirates will provide the funds and Jihadist volunteers for the rebels, Turkey will be the staging post, while America and NATO will provide the weapons and trainers. It is eerily reminiscent of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1979 “brilliant idea” to train, arm and equip Islamic fundamentalists as a tool against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The fruits will be the same. A post-Assad Syria—however fragmented—would become a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and Jihad terrorism.
That Syria is becoming an increasingly contentious issue in the relations between Washington and Moscow is an unnecessary and potentially dangerous development entirely of the Administration’s own making. That the strategic rationale for such behavior is lacking is unsurprising. All major interventions of the past two decades—Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya—have been self-defeating, illegal, and beneficial to the warriors in the path of the Prophet. Syria would be no exception.
Rep. Glen Bradley came to our NC PATCON April 27 - 29 2012. A good man.
The most interesting debate of Monday night’s House session was over a bill to extend the Local Food Advisory Council. Some GOP members say it’s part of a UN plot to subvert US sovereignty.
The measure, Senate Bill 491, simply extends the Local Food Advisory Council’s mandate for three years. It has the support of Republican Commissioner of Agriculture Steve Troxler.
Nonetheless, two GOP House members argued it’s part of a United Nations conspiracy, because the board’s charter includes the term “sustainable.”
Rep. Glen Bradley tried to amend the bill to remove the word from the panel’s mission. He said the term “sustainable” is government doublespeak, intended to ”lull the public into complacency.”
Bradley warned his colleagues that “sustainability” is part of the UN’s Agenda 21.
Here are the Republicans who voted with Democrats to defeat Rep. Bradley’s amendment to strip pro-Agenda 21 language from the Food Advisory Council’s charter. They joined with Joe Hackney to provide the swing vote; most Republicans voted with Bradley and AGAINST Agenda 21. Clearly, the below Reps agree with the Southern Poverty Law Center , which claims that Agenda 21 doesn’t exist, and is just an “anti-government conspiracy theory.”
Remember them well, as they all clearly need to be replaced at their next election.
Rep. Bill Brawley – 919-733-5800
Rep. Larry Brown – 919-733-5607
Rep. Jimmy Dixon – 919-715-3021
Rep. Mike Hager – 919-733-5749
Rep. Mark Hollo – 919-715-8361
Rep. D. Craig Horn – 919-733-2406
Rep. James Langdon, Jr. – 919-733-5849
Rep. Bill McGee – 919-733-5747
Rep. Chuck McGrady – 919-733-5956
Rep. Efton Sager – 919-733-5755
Rep. Ruth Samuelson – 919-715-3009
Rep. Paul Stam – 919-733-2962
Rep. John A. Torbett – 919-733-5868