Archive for June, 2012

Based on congressional testimony, Gen. Holder might have some difficult explaining to do:

A single internal Department of Justice email could be the smoking-gun document in the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, if it turns out to contain what congressional investigators have said it does.

The document would establish that wiretap application documents show senior DOJ officials knew about and approved the gunwalking tactic in Fast and Furious. This is the opposite of what Attorney General Eric Holder and House oversight committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings have claimed.

If Chairman Issa can get his hands on these documents and if these documents contain what they purportedly contain, this would be a major problem for Mr. Holder. Here’s why I think that’s precisely what they contain:

“The ATF director, Kenneth Melson, sent an e-mail. And he had said to us in sworn testimony that, in fact, he had concerns,” Issa said. “And we want to see that e-mail because that’s an example where he was saying, if we believe his sworn testimony, that guns walked. And he said it shortly after February 4, and [on] July 4. When he told us that, we began asking for that document.”

That certainly isn’t helpful for this administration. If it’s verified, that’s proof this administration lied to Chairman Issa’s committee. Unfortunately for this administration, that isn’t all:

Grassley pressed Holder on the question of how DOJ had the authority to withhold Melson’s email from Congress, a full week before President Obama indicated that he would invoke executive privilege to shield requested documents. At that time, Holder claimed the Melson email would not be protected by executive privilege.

“On what legal ground are you withholding that email?” He asked. “The president can’t claim executive privilege to withhold that email, is that correct?”

“Well, let me just say this: We have reached out to Chairman Issa to work our way through these issues,” Holder filibustered. “We have had sporadic contacts and we are prepared to make; I am prepared to make; compromises with regard to the documents that can be made available. There is a basis for withholding these documents if they deal with the deliberative …”

“But not on executive privilege?” Grassley interrupted.

“No,” Holder responded.

The fact that Mr. Holder isn’t giving Chairman Issa’s committee a document that Mr. Holder says isn’t justifiably protected by executive privilege means that there’s information that the committee doesn’t have that might hurt this administration both politically and legally. That’s the only explanation that makes sense.

Regardless, Republicans need to intensify their pressure on Mr. Holder and this administration. They’ve got to speak out about this information with every press outlet that makes time available. This is a potentially game-changing piece of information.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The organizing committee for the Democrats’ national convention is having difficulty raising money. That’s why they’ve canceled their kickoff event:

Democrats canceled a political convention kick-off event at the Charlotte Motor Speedway and will move the activities to Charlotte’s main business district, the convention’s host committee announced.

“While we regret having to move CarolinaFest away from our great partners at the Charlotte Motor Speedway and the City of Concord, we are thrilled with the opportunity that comes with hosting this event in Uptown Charlotte,” said Dan Murrey, the executive director of the Charlotte in 2012 Convention Host Committee.

The move comes as party planners are grappling with a fundraising deficit of roughly $27 million, according to two people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss internal party politics. With a party ban on direct contributions from corporations, the host committee has raised less than $10 million, well short of its $36.6 million goal, said one of the people.

This is a major problem for Democrats. Their fundraising totals for their convention have been pathetic. A few weeks ago, they went with hat-in-hand to the unions to help pay for their convention.

That, apparently, didn’t go well because they’re changing their plans for their kickoff event. That’s a major embarassment to the party. At a time when families are struggling, they’ll trust the party that’s got their financial house in order.

That Drudge headline screams ‘financial disaster’. This tidbit of news indicates they’re in deeper trouble than just the headline:

In January, Steve Kerrigan, chief executive officer of the convention committee, said that Democrats were shortening their convention from four days to three “to make room for a day to organize and celebrate the Carolinas, Virginia and the South and kick off the convention at Charlotte Motor Speedway on Labor Day,” Sept. 3.

That’s code for ‘We can’t afford to do a real convention so we’re shortening it.’ Forget about 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Democrats have been stepping backward most of the time this year.

What a fitting image for their campaign.

Tags: , , , , , ,

It’s a long-held belief that the DFL best represents northern Minnesota. To a degree, that’s still true, especially in the parts that environmentalists rule the roost.

Chip Cravaack’s victory proved that the door is opening for the GOP. Carolyn McElfatrick’s victory over Loren Solberg is proof that that door might be open wider than the DFL is willing to admit.

I wrote this post in the hopes of proving that the DFL isn’t supportive of the Iron Rangers. Tonight, I’m taking a different approach. Conservation Minnesota has a team of strategic advisors. Here’s who serves as strategic advisors:
Arne Carlson

Dave Durenberger

Dean Johnson

Dee Long

Jim Ramstad

Paul Aasen

Margaret Anderson-Kelliher

Tom Horner

Here’s Conservation Minnesota’s agenda:

Conservation Minnesota, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy are targeting the proposed PolyMet mine near Hoyt Lakes and the proposed Twin Metals mine near Ely.

Outsiders to the Range are trying to tell Rangers what’s best for them. That’s insulting. The only strategic advisor that doesn’t live in the Twin Cities is Dean Johnson. The rest of them live in the Twin Cities. What do they know about the Iron Range’s needs?

Let’s compare that with the GOP. Chip Cravaack has done a terrific job staying in touch with his constituents. They appreciate the job he’s done, too, as evidenced by the fact that he’s had an army of volunteers at all of the parades on the range.

The pictures in this post say that 15 volunteers showed up at the Peter Mitchell Days Parade in Babbitt. The DFL was nowhere to be found.

Whether the Range tips to the GOP in 2012, 2014 or 2016, it will happen. The DFL’s days of Range domination are coming to a halt. Chip Cravaack’s and Carolyn McElfatrick’s victories are just the leading indicators of that shift.

The bottom line is this: The Rangers can vote for DFL candidates that align themselves with anti-mining special interest groups from the Twin Cities. Otherwise, they can vote for GOP candidates that will vote to improve the economy on the range.

That’s a pretty straightforward pick.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama’s political decision to rescind the federal government’s pact with Arizona is proof positive that President Obama won’t enforce the federal government’s laws. He’s essentially become the first US Scofflaw-in-Chief. Predictably, Arizona law enforcement is reacting to the Scofflaw-in-Chief’s edict. First, here’s what Gov. Brewer said about the Scofflaw-in-Chief’s decision:

“As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.

“Of course, it is no coincidence that this announcement comes immediately on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the heart of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: SB 1070. It’s worth noting that 68 law enforcement entities in 24 states have functioning 287(g) agreements with the federal government. But it appears the only agreements eliminated today were those in Arizona, the state that happens to be on the front lines of America’s fight against illegal immigration. We are on our own, apparently.

“I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn, downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration.

President Obama has exceptionally thin skin. He also isn’t much into enforcing laws that past congresses have passed and previous presidents have signed into law. Today’s decision to undercut Arizona’s ability to protect its people is the greatest abdication of a president’s domestic responsibilities in the past 25 years.

Arizona is Ground Zero of the immigration battle. Their citizens have been tortured, held hostage or murdered outright. Despite those facts, the federal government has turned a blind eye towards Arizona.

Here’s what Rep. Jeff Flake said:

Mesa, Arizona – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today criticized the Obama Administration’s suspension of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g) program in Arizona, which allows local authorities to partner with federal law enforcement agencies to carry out certain immigration enforcement functions. ICE announced today that with the suspension of the 287(g) program, their agents will not respond to a scene in which a person’s immigration status is in question unless that person is a convicted criminal, has been removed from the US previously and reentered unlawfully, or is a recent border crosser.

“Suspending this program will strip our local authorities of critical tools to deal with illegal immigration,” said Flake. “The Obama Administration is effectively broadcasting that unless an illegal immigrant is wanted for a crime, the attention of ICE isn’t warranted.”

President Obama campaigned against President Bush and Bush’s “imperial presidency.” It’s ironic that his administration is selectively, and intermittenly, enforcing the laws on the books. President Obama has become what he campaigned against.

KrisAnne Hall, whom I met at this year’s RightOnline Conference, wrote this brilliant article about Monday’s opinion written by Anthony Kennedy. I found this part particularly compelling:

Not only is this ruling devoid of any appeal to the Constitution, it is very dangerous. It is an aberration of fundamental Constitutional principles and a brazen assault on state sovereignty! Chiefly, Kennedy takes the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, which declares that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and translates that principle into the supremacy of the Federal government over the states. There couldn’t be anything more contrary to our founders’ intent. Let me repeat: this opinion is a monumental assault on the sovereignty of the states.

Article I section 8 clause 4 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power [t]o establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The purpose of the federal government in the case of immigration, as Justice Kennedy appropriately acknowledges is “to be a single voice of the nation for foreign relations.”

This external focus is in line with James Madison’s directive that: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce…”

Justice Kennedy’s ruling allowed President Obama to continue his disastrous, dangerous policies that endanger people. If Justice Kennedy had the final say in the matter, state sovereignty would’ve disappeared midway through his intellectually flimsy opinion.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

I told you so. I said it was just a matter of time before liberals started writing articles about the ‘activist’ SCOTUS. Ezra Klein’s post proved me right:

Over the past two years, the Republican Party has slowly been building a permission structure for the five Republicans on the Supreme Court to feel comfortable doing something nobody thought they could do: Violate the existing understanding of the Commerce Clause and, in perhaps the most significant moment of judicial activism since the New Deal, overturn either all or part of the Affordable Care Act.

The first step was, perhaps, the hardest: The Republican Party had to take an official and unanimous stand against the wisdom and constitutionality of the individual mandate. Typically, it’s not that difficult for the opposition party to oppose the least popular element in the majority party’s largest initiative. But the individual mandate was a policy idea Republicans had thought of in the late-1980s and supported for two decades. They had, in effect, to convince every Republican to say that the policy they had been supporting was an unconstitutional assault on liberty.

Klein’s writing that ‘Republican justices’ are violating “the existing understanding of the Commerce Clause” is judicial activism doesn’t mean they’re being activists. That’s a warped twist on words.

If the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the 5 justices will have only ruled that the Ninth and Tenth amendments must be taken seriously. They will have ruled that the Commerce Clause isn’t meant to give Congress and the president the authority to strip states and individuals of the rights the Founding Fathers originally gave them.

The Supreme Court’s Wickard v. Filburn ruling was as misguided as was their Roe v. Wade ruling.

Striking down precedents that violate the Constitution is a virtuous thing. They enable the courts to restore the Constitution to its proper place of authority.

The proper definition of judicial activism is when the courts put in place their policy preferences even if it volates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Wickard v. Filburn was clever lawyering but the justices could’ve said that they appreciated the clever lawyering without ruling for the clever lawyer’s client. Wickard v. Filburn opened the floodgates that helped Congress take rights away from states and individuals.

If it’s examined closely, Wickard v. Filburn is a ruling that says the federal government has the right to tell businesses that they have to conduct business according to the federal government’s preferences.

That ruling didn’t have anything to do with interstate commerce. It had everything to do with the federal government passing a law to artificially creating commerce. As is usually the case, the federal government’s attempt to bully businesses into doing what they want hurt farmers without helping the economy.

It’s government of, by and for the control freaks in government.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rid us of 75 years of bad precedents when it hands down its ruling this Thursday.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

With SCOTUS apparently heading towards striking down at least part of the PPACA, Democrats have already been testing trial balloon defenses. One of their arguments will be that the Roberts Court is an activist court, the type of thing conservatives railed against for years.

I won’t say that you should ignore the Left’s arguments. I’m recommending that you smash their arguments and ridicule them for making intellectually flimsy arguments.

The Left’s intellectual laziness started with their getting their way in the Wickard v. Filburn ruling. Wickard v. Filburn is constitutionally tortured:

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government.

That opened the floodgates for SCOTUS to rapidly and incorrectly expand the federal government’s authority beyond its constitutional boundaries.

The Commerce Clause was codified into the Constitution to give the federal government the authority to prevent interstate trade wars. PERIOD. It wasn’t intended to give Congress a quasi-constitutional rationalization for doing whatever it wanted.

The Commerce Clause is now used by progressives in both parties to justify rationalize major expansions of federal authority. The Founding Fathers envisioned a federal government with enumerated responsibilities and the authority to do what only the federal government needed to do.

That’s why they put the Ninth and Tenth amendments in the Bill of Rights.

What the Left is disparaging as judicial activism is nothing more than the SCOTUS using the Constitution as the basis for their ruling. That isn’t what past courts have done but it’s the right way for determining whether legislation is constitutional.

That said, if that’s what’s happening, it’d mark a major shift in how cases are ruled on. Some might rightly argue that it’s a revolutionary shift in how the courts rule on things.

During Chief Justice John Roberts’ confirmation hearings, Sen. Dick Durbin asked him what assurances Durbin could get that a Chief Justice Roberts would “side with the little guy” in his rulings. Roberts’ reply certainly left them apoplectic.

Roberts replied that the senators could rest assured that “every time that the Constitution is on the little guy’s side,” he’d rule for the little guy.

Democrats didn’t like that reply but it’s a reply that the vast majority of Americans would wholeheartedly agree with.

While it’d be foolish to argue that basing opinions on precedents isn’t worthwhile, it isn’t foolish to argue that badly thought through precedents are worthless.

Nobody questions the fact that Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice. Still, he’s argued that Roe v. Wade isn’t SCOTUS’s best work from a constitutional. Rudy’s argued that the US Constitution doesn’t give the federal government the authority to rule on what he sees as a states’ rights issue.

To be fair, Democrats are struggling to cope with what’s possibly a brave new world for them. They’ve relied on SCOTUS to give them their biggest political victories.

Hypothetically speaking, telling Democrats that they’ll have to earn their legislative victories through the legislative branch in cooperation with the executive branch is a shock to the Democrats’ nervous system.

Hopefully, SCOTUS’ ruling on the PPACA will usher in a new era of relying on the Constitution for their rulings rather than the justices substituting their policy beliefs for the elected branches of government’s policies.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Like a Lori Swanson or Mike Hatch press conference announcing their next big lawsuit, the environmentalists’ petitions delivered to Gov. Dayton are about PR, not substance.

This article exposes the lie that there was a great groundswell of opposition against PolyMet and similar mining operations.

Former state legislator Frank Moe captured a lot of media attention when he staged a 350-mile sled dog run from Ely to the North Shore, through Duluth and down to the State Capitol in St. Paul.

The purpose: To deliver, on March 8, a reported 12,500 to 13,000 signed petitions to Gov. Mark Dayton to try to block any copper/nickel/precious metals mining in Northeastern Minnesota.

That was the environmentalists’ first major mistake:

MiningMinnesota, an advocacy group for nonferrous mining in the region, at first had some difficulty getting copies of the petitions. But when it filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the governor’s attorney, the petitions submitted to the Department of Natural Resources commissioner were made available immediately.

The results of their research are especially damaging to the environmentalists’ credibility. Here’s why:

70 percent of the signatures are from the seven-county metropolitan area (4,498 or 45 percent) and out of state (2,612 or 25 percent) combined. That differs considerably from what Steve Morse, executive director of the Minnesota Environmental Patnership, said at the March 8 rally at the State Capitol regarding the “petitions of 12,500 Minnesotans from northern Minnesota primarily.”

It’s worth noting that there weren’t 12,500 signatures. Next, it’s worth noting that, of the 10,000 approximate signatures, roughly one-fourth of them were from people who don’t live in Minnesota. Finally, there’s this:

Of the 1,805 from Northeast Minnesota, the vast majority of them are from places outside the Iron Range, with the most from Duluth and the North Shore.

That’s possibly the biggest secret that the environmentalists didn’t want people to know. Most Minnesotans think that the people living within 75 miles of Duluth had the same beliefs. They don’t.

The Arrowhead is filled with treehuggers that hate mining. They’ve undercut the miners every step of the way while telling them they’re an important part of the DFL coalition. These statistics tell the world that the Iron Range isn’t environmentalist-friendly:

The core Iron Range had few signatures. Here are those unofficial numbers as counted: Virginia, 9 (including former City Councilor Rob Raplinger); Chisholm, 6; Soudan, 6; Bovey, 4; Hibbing, 5; Tower, 6; Buhl, 1; Makinen, 2.

That’s stunning. Approximately 9,750 people signed the petition. Fewer than 40 of those signatures came from the Iron Range. That’s just barely .4% of the signatures obtained.

As bad as those statistics are for the environmentalists, this statistic annihilates their credibility:

“The total number of hardrock mines permitted (on United States Forest Service lands) since 1990 is 2,658; no sites have been placed on the CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (commonly known as Superfund) list” Department of Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack wrote in a letter to a U.S. senator on July 20, 2011.

For all of the environmentalists’ accusations of mining destroying the countryside, official statistics from Washington, DC, say that “no sites have been placed on the [superfund list]” since 1990. That’s over 20 years of consistent compliance with America’s superfund laws. (I’m betting that the odds of that information making it into Conservation Minnesota’s or MEP’s fundraising appeals isn’t 1%.)

Finally, let’s demolish the environmentalists’ myths with this information:

Ongaro also said Moe, who operates a sled dog business, was “not even close” in citing the number of jobs in the region dependent on “clean water.” He put the tourism jobs number in the region at 30,000.

“The total tourism-related private sector employment number for March 2012 in Cook, Lake and St. Louis counties combined is 15,153. Yes, half of the claimed 30,000. If you take out Duluth, that number drops to 9,113,” Ongaro said, referring to state Department of Employment and Economic Development statistics.

The environmentalists’ arguments aren’t about preserving the environment. It’s about imposing the environmentalists’ will on people. The tourism ‘industry’ is a myth. It won’t trigger a dynamic economy. It hasn’t kept the North Shore’s or the Iron Range’s economy humming. It never will.

That’s 3 strikes (and then some) against the environmentalists’ credibility.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The first thing I thought about this FT article is that it must’ve been written by this administration. Here’s what tipped me off that this was a spin job, not serious journalism:

When John Roberts was being confirmed as chief justice of the Supreme Court in 2005, he famously said that the nine judges on the highest US court should be like baseball umpires, whose job it is “to call balls and strikes and not [to] pitch or bat”.

But almost seven years later, Mr Roberts has presided over a bench that has issued an increasing number of 5-4 decisions, a trend that has fuelled Americans’ suspicions that the court is becoming ever-more political and that has exacerbated the decline in its public standing.

Those perceptions could be heightened this week, when the Supreme Court issues its much-anticipated ruling on whether President Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare reforms were constitutional.

The American people hate the PPACA. That’s why they want it repealed. The numbers haven’t moved more than a point or two since the bill’s signing.

If SCOTUS rules that the entire bill is unconstitutional, the first thing you’ll hear from families and businesses alike will be a huge sigh of relief. The next sound you’ll hear will be loud applause because one of the most ill-advised pieces of legislation in history will be dispatched into oblivion.

The only people doing the handwringing thing will come be the professional worriers of the political class. The other 60% of people willl rejoice that the bill is dead.

This sounds like BS from the political class, too:

At the heart of the healthcare case is how the justices view the commerce clause, one of the most widely debated parts of the constitution, and one that has only grown more contentious as the public has become more concerned about the scope of federal government.

At the heart of this case is whether the federal government is able to tell people that choosing to not get involved in commerce is an act of commerce. It isn’t.

Also at the heart of this case is whether there is a limit on the Commerce Clause. If there isn’t, then Katie bar the door. The floodgates will open. Bad legislation will be justified by citing the Commerce Clause.

If it’s ruled that there isn’t a limit on the Commerce Clause, the TEA Party uprising of 2010 will seem mild compared with what will happen. Years ago, George Will wrote “When the American people want something badly enough and scream loudly enough long enough, sooner or later, the leaders will follow.” Amen to that, Brother Will.

As with Bush v Gore and Citizens United, the healthcare ruling could have a substantial impact on the direction of a US election. To strike down the law would give Republicans a legal victory to tout as they persist in criticising the Obama administration’s “overreach”.

But it could also infuriate and energise the liberal Democratic base that has become increasingly disillusioned with President Barack Obama during the last three and a half years, and which might not otherwise vote in large numbers again this year.

Support for overturning the PPACA hovers in the mid-50’s percentage-wise. That’s all Republicans and a majority of independents. If Wisconsin taught us anything, and it did, it’s that pro-growth conservatives do well when the Democrats’ base is energized.

I remember hearing Juan Williams talking on Special Report when the first protests started in Wisconsin. He talked about the enthusiasm gap had finally disappeared. He talked about how this should worry Scott Walker.

Juan Williams was right. The enthusiasm gap had disappeared. With that gap gone, though, a new gap was created. That new gap might be called the disgusting behavior gap. When Katherine Windels allegedly sent Sen. Scott Fitzgerald a death threat, people recoiled with disgust.

The bottom line is that independents recoil with disgust when progressives show their true nature.

Conservatives have nothing to fear if SCOTUS overturns the PPACA. Rather, they’ll have plenty to cheer about if it’s overturned.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This weekend, Democrats have visited the TV talk shows explaining that Eric Holder is the victim of Republicans’ vindictive political fishing expedition. That’s insulting for a multitude of reasons.

The morning of the vote, President Obama asserted executive privilege, which temporarily prevented the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee from seeing the documents. Most serious legal scholars expect the courts to laugh at President Obama’s claims of executive privilege.

Before we take that step, though, it’s time to remember Holder’s past indiscretions. The most recent indiscretion was his dropping charges against the New Black Panther Party thugs that threatened white voters outside a Philadelphia polling station:

Bartle Bull described himself as a “John Kennedy Democrat” during his interview with Bill O’Reilly. Here’s what he told O’Reilly:

O’REILLY: And that’s interesting, because you are leading the charge here against these Black Panthers. Now what did you see yourself on election day? What did you see?

BULL: I saw two armed uniformed threatening men blocking the door to a polling place, screaming rudeness at voters.

O’REILLY: What was their intent?

BULL: I can’t answer for what was between their ears.

O’REILLY: Well, what were they screaming, though?

BULL: I heard, well, one of them, for example, screamed, “Now you will see what it is like to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

O’REILLY: Okay, did they have their Black Panther regalia on?

BULL: They wore jack boots, black boots, black combat boots, black paramilitary uniforms, black berets.

O’REILLY: All right, so they were intimidating as this young man who photographed them said. You concur with that assessment?

BULL: Oh, absolutely.

Despite the eyewitness testimony of a civil rights movement legend and videotape of the Panthers’ thuggery, Eric Holder dropped the case against the New Black Panthers Party.

That alone is justification for doubting Holder. Unfortunately, that isn’t the only reason not to trust Holder:

This is the same man who was a driving force behind President Clinton’s pardons of members of the notorious Puerto Rican terrorist group, the Armed Forces for National Liberation (FALN).

This shows what type of terrorists FALN was:

After members of the FALN were arrested, they threatened Judge Thomas McMillen’s life during their Chicago trial. Carmen Valentine told the judge, “You are lucky that we cannot take you right now,” and called the judge a terrorist. Dylcia Pagan warned the courtroom: “All of you, I would advise you to watch your backs.” And Ida Rodriguez told the judge, “You say we have no remorse. You’re right. Your jails and your long sentences will not frighten us.” These terrorists convinced McMillen that they would continue being terrorists “as long as you live. If there was a death penalty, I’d impose the penalty on you without hesitation.”

What type of law enforcement official would tell the president that these terrorists deserve a pardon? Answer: an Eric Holder type of ‘law enforcement official’. That’s before considering the fact that Mr. Holder played a vital role in the Marc Rich pardon:

Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter, a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was “neutral, leaning toward” favorable, helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members, participants said.

It’s interesting that the man that Democrats are telling us to trust today is the person who told the Justice Department to drop a case they’d already won a conviction on.

The person Democrats are telling us to trust today is the man who said the FALN terrorists should be pardoned. The person that the Democrats are portraying as an honest man is the person who refused to stop the pardon of a fugitive from justice.

With all due respect, these aren’t the actions of a trustworthy public servant. They’re the actions of an ideologue who puts a higher priority on setting thugs free than on preventing violent thugs from seeing the light of day.

Trust Eric Holder? Not even if my life depended on it.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This past Wednesday, Sen. Franken, (D-MN) and Sen. Klobuchar, (D-MN), voted to raise Minnesotans’ electricity bills. They did it by voting to extend the filibuster of a resolution that would’ve nullified the EPA’s Utility MACT rules.

The Heritage Foundation’s Foundry blog sounds an alarming note:

The EPA estimates the rule will cost $9.6 billion annually, to be paid by utilities and customers alike for new equipment, monitoring and reporting, loss of generating capacity, and higher electricity rates. Industry insiders consider the agency figures to be a lowball estimate.

That’s just the tip of the regulatory iceberg. This important information shouldn’t be overlooked:

Prima facie evidence of the non-credibility of EPA’s co-benefits estimates exists in EPA’s baseline estimates of risk in this RIA: deaths that were “due to” ambient PM2.5 exposures exceeded 20% in areas of the US in 2005. These cobenefits assumptions also imply that over 40% of deaths were due to PM2.5 in parts of the US during the period 1979-1983 when PM2.5 concentrations were approximately double those for 2005. These surprisingly high assumptions about baseline risk, which in my opinion stretch the bounds of plausibility, are the result of a single assumption change in 2009 in EPA’s RIAs to extrapolate risks below the ambient PM2.5 levels that have been studied, to as low as background (i.e., nearly zero).

RIAs are not subject to peer review by EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) or to a public comment period.

Nothing says untrustworthy louder than rules that aren’t “subject to peer review” or that ignores public comments before implementing the rule.

That means Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar based their votes, which will increase Minnesotans’ electric bills, on fiction and ideology. Some coal-fired power plants in the southeast will be forced to shut down entirely, hitting that region especially hard in terms of unemployment.

A strong case can be made that Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar, along with others voting to maintain the filibuster, voted for higher unemployment and lower family incomes by voting to continue this filibuster.

What sick person would make that vote while the economy is struggling and families are hurting?

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,