Tag: Department of Justice

Categories
Quick Analysis

Forced Support for Partisan causes

The disreputable practice of forcing voters and taxpayers to pay for political and ideological causes they disagree with is finally under attack.

The most blatant part of this abuse ended in June, when the Department of  Justice (DOJ) ended  the Obama-era policy that diverted about $3 billion in third-party settlements to left-wing causes. A DOJ statement  noted that:

“When the federal government settles a case against a corporate wrongdoer, any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the American people— not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  “Unfortunately, in recent years the Department of Justice has sometimes required or encouraged defendants to make these payments to third parties as a condition of settlement.  With this directive, we are ending this practice and ensuring that settlement funds are only used to compensate victims, redress harm, and punish and deter unlawful conduct.”

Under the last Administration, the Department repeatedly required settling parties to pay settlement funds to third party community organizations that were not directly involved in the litigation or harmed by the defendant’s conduct.  Pursuant to the Attorney General’s memorandum, this practice will immediately stop.”

A Competitive Enterprise Institute study by Hans Bader  noted that “By enabling government officials to reward and financially strengthen their political allies, diversions of settlement funds created a political imbalance that undermined democracy. State attorneys general have also diverted government settlement funds to political allies. ‘With control over big money flows,’ [the CATO Institute’s Walter] Olson noted in 2015, ‘smart AGs can populate a political landscape with grateful allies.’ The Obama administration similarly ‘came under justified criticism for using the mortgage settlement to funnel tens of millions of dollars’ to predominantly ‘left-leaning community-organizing groups.’

“As [CEI]  noted in 2011, the Obama administration sued many banks for discrimination (including banks accused of “racially disparate impact” for using commonplace, colorblind lending policies), and then diverted settlement funds to left-wing groups allied with it: Fearing bad publicity from being accused of ‘racism’, banks have paid out millions in settlements after being sued by the Justice Department, even though they would probably prevail before most judges if they aggressively fought such charges (although doing so would probably cost them millions in legal fees).  A Michigan judge called one proposed settlement ‘extortion.’ These settlements provide cash for ‘politically favored ‘community groups’ allied with the Obama Administration, and the [Wall Street] Journal’s Mary Kissel predicts that ‘many’ of the loans mandated by these settlements ‘will eventually go bad.’”

The forced contributions weren’t restricted to the federal government.  A salient example comes from Maine, as reported by Mainewire  in 2012. “Efficiency Maine, the quasi-governmental agency that pushes to increase the use of ‘alternative energy,’ has used taxpayer funds to buy advertising on Maine Insights, the ultra-liberal website…that regularly advocates for extreme liberal positions and causes …[the website]  also regularly features interviews and profiles of prominent Democrat leaders…[it] does not publish profiles of Republicans, but criticizes them regularly.

In just a few years, Kamagra became successful winning hearts of numerous users. viagra 25 mg slovak-republic.org Regular indulgence in physical activities, sports or doing exercises of generico viagra on line pelvic muscles in specific may also improve the condition of their penis. viagra without prescription uk A lot of companies are now producing the medicine. brand cialis price You can purchase your favorite flavor jelly so you can cheerfully appreciate your night with your accomplice. Current examples abound. An Independent Journal Review report earlier this month disclosed that “Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh [has] announced the city will be providing free buses to students who wish to attend the March For Our Lives [a gun control event] rally in Washington, D.C., that is scheduled to take place March 24. In addition to the buses, the city will provide T-shirts and lunches for the students.”

One prominent current arena in which taxpayer dollars are misused for partisan political purposes is in public-financed state universities.  A significant number of these institutions have a track record of both advocating for left-wing candidates and causes while harassing and censoring moderate and conservative students and faculty. This becomes particularly acute during presidential election years.

Peter Wood, in a 2012 Chronicle of Higher Education article, reported: “A senior [Ohio State] English professor invited his colleagues to open their classrooms…to organizers in the Obama campaign. They would first encourage students to register to vote and then, if the instructors were willing, encourage students to volunteer for the Obama campaign…My hunch that there is more to this is based on what happened in 2008, when the Obama campaign rather openly pitched the idea that colleges and universities should award academic credit to students who volunteered for the campaign. I blew the whistle on an instance of that at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, which abruptly canceled a campaign-for-credit offer by some academics at the college. But it turned out that the same thing was going on at other universities.”

Advocating for a particular leftist cause or candidate is only half the problem. The other part concerns the censorship of centrists and conservative students, who are frequently confined to small “free speech zones” while left-wing ideas are openly advocated within classrooms.

There is movement on this front, as well.  Andrew Blake reported in the March 6 Washington Times that “Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that eliminates “free speech zones” at public universities and allows schools to be sued for restricting campus protests, a practice predominately employed against conservative students.  The Florida Excellence in Higher Education Act of 2018 passed in the House and Senate by votes of 84-28 and 33-5, respectively, sending it to Governor Rick Scott’s desk where it awaits his approval… Last-minute efforts waged by Democrats in both the House and Senate on Monday failed to strip Mr. Rommel’s language from the bill.”

Not content with inappropriately using taxpayer dollars for partisan politics at home, Fox News reports that “Republican lawmakers in Washington started asking questions about whether U.S. tax dollars also were being used to fund Soros projects in the small, conservative-led country of Macedonia. Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., led a group of House lawmakers in writing to Ambassador Jess Baily — an Obama appointee — demanding answers. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also expressed concerns about USAID money going to Soros’ Open Society Foundations as part of a broader concern that the U.S. Embassy has been taking sides in party politics.”

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

DOJ Preparing to Tolerate Massive Voter Fraud

Are Americans being desensitized to criminal acts by federal agencies as a prelude to massive cheating in the upcoming presidential election?

The deeply disturbing confirmation that the leadership of the Internal Revenue Service was aware that their agency’s resources were being used to target political opponents of the Obama Administration adds to concerns that there has been a wholesale hijacking of taxpayer funded government agencies for partisan purposes.

The tolerance of these crimes sets up the nation for a potentially explosive altercation in the coming presidential ballot.

The latest revelation, discovered by Judicial Watch through an examination of FBI documents, presents a worrisome picture, particularly when combined with other research and information about the unlawful and biased practices of various federal departments during the Obama Administration.

The incriminating documents were obtained through a federal court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) demand.

The FBI papers  show “that top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting ‘Tea Party’ and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public.  An FBI 302 document contains detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations.  The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.”

The failure to bring charges against those who have committed criminal acts on behalf of the Obama Administration is emerging as a consistent pattern. The most recent example is the failure to prosecute former Secretary Clinton for obvious and serious national security-related  violations.

According to the released material, notes Judicial Watch, a “Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report clearly shows that “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011…The FBI documents also reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups because of their ideology and political affiliation in the summer of 2011. .. IRS senior official Nancy Marks, … stated, “Cincinnati [The IRS center doing the targeting] was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity…According to the FBI documents, Paz and others were informed in the late spring and summer of 2011 that Cincinnati agents were using ‘BOLO’ (Be On the Look Out) briefing guides that instructed them to be ‘looking at cases using the Tea Party term.’”

In and of itself, the criminal actions of the Internal Revenue Service would be deeply troubling. But a pattern of such behavior across several federal departments is evident, as is the collusion of the Justice Department (DOJ) in its failure to prosecute these transgressions.

Writing for Creators, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano harshly criticized the DOJ in the most recent example of its political bias, the refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her negligent handling of classified material.

You check that site pills cialis might also want to try homeopathy to help treat your irritable bowel syndrome. Keeping these things in mind will certainly help with cialis without rx erectile dysfunction and impotence. After a one year follow http://www.slovak-republic.org/video/ order free viagra up the safety measures in correct way. Milk is a reservoir of nutrients and forms an important ingredient generic viagra without prescriptions of a balanced diet. “Is it worth impairing,” Napolitano asks, “the reputation of the FBI and the Department of Justice to save Hillary Clinton from a deserved criminal prosecution by playing word games? What has become of the rule of law — no one is beneath its protections or above its requirements — when the American public can witness a game of political musical chairs orchestrated by Bill Clinton at an airport in a bizarre ruse to remove the criminal investigation of his wife from those legally responsible for making decisions about it? These are questions that now beg for answers in light of what can only be the politically motivated FBI report …in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account…The criminal case against Mrs. Clinton would have been overwhelming.”

Both of these examples have served to desensitize the public about official misconduct, particularly when it comes to tampering with the election process. IRS harassment of opposition political groups, and the get-out-of-jail free card handed to presidential candidate Clinton both serve as precursors to the looming attack on a fair election process.

Numerous extensively well-credentialed researchers, including former DOJ veterans, have detailed the failure, indeed, the refusal, of the DOJ to prosecute overt and serious election misdeeds during the Obama years. J. Christian Adams, to cite just example, has written an entire book on the subject; his points have also been made by others as well. Both left and right oriented organizations (Pew, Heritage) have written about inaccurate voter registration rolls.

Hans A. von Spakovsky, writing for Heritage, has noted that one portion of the Voting Rights Act has been turned from its original purpose into a “political weapon.” He writes that “This cynical manipulation of federal power to benefit one political party over another … all-too-common … during Democratic administrations — underscores that the only real source of refuge from these political machinations is the Supreme Court.”

All of which leads to what will be the greatest challenge of the 2016 campaign, the potential for large-scale voter fraud resulting from the DOJ, at the behest of the Obama Administration, to oppose any attempt at insuring that only qualified voters registered in the place in which they are casting their ballot, actually vote.

The hypocrisy of Democrat opposition to voter ID was front and center at their recently concluded convention in Philadelphia.  Breitbart notes:

“Democrats have railed against voter ID laws…but Democratic National Convention officials will only issue credentials to those who present state-issued IDs. The DNC’s website says that ‘all pickup persons must have a state-issued ID that matches the name submitted’ to receive credentials. Media members attending the DNC have to present photo IDs at multiple checkpoints. But even as Democrats require IDs to enter their convention and The Voter Integrity Project discovered there were 30,000 dead North Carolinians still on the state’s voter rolls, Democrats continue to fiercely oppose voter ID laws.”

According to Ballotpedia, ” As of July 2016, only 18 states required voters to present photo identification… In some states, a voter who is unable to present valid identification may still be permitted to vote without casting a provisional ballot.”

A 2015 report by the Washington Times noted “President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress …saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole…secretaries of state from Ohio and Kansas said they won’t have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register anyway…”

The failure of the DOJ to take appropriate action in the IRS and Clinton Server scandals, and the agency’s refusal to prosecute clear-cut cases of voting-related misconduct in the past provide the groundwork for its tolerance of wide-spread and significant fraud in the 2016 presidential balloting.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FBI Admits Clinton Wrongdoing But Won’t Press Charges

NOTE: today’s previously announced column, The Campaign vs. Free Speech, can be read at http://www.usagovpolicy.com/nyanalysis/campaign-vs-free-speech-continues/

FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision not  to indict Hillary Clinton should not be reviewed in terms of its effect on the 2016 campaign. Far more important is its effect on the federal system of justice, and its increasing susceptibility to political influence. We have reviewed points raised during his statement, and how they should be interpreted:

Comey acknowledges wrongdoing by Clinton, and the resulting danger to the United States:

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent… there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information… For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail. ” None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

The Director acknowledges a cover-up by Clinton:

“It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

Comey acknowledges that laws were broken:

“…there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…”

And finally, the Director acknowledges that another person would receive punishment:

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

Summarizing the above, the FBI:

  • Admits that Clinton handled top secret information with reckless disregard for the safety of the nation;
  • Admits that the former Secretary of State attempted to cover-up her misdeed;
  • Admits that laws were probably broken;
  • And acknowledges that someone else doing precisely what Clinton did would face punishment.

This allows customers the ability buy browse that super generic cialis at much reduced prices and gives them the opportunity to restore their potency at a greatly affordable rate. These new versions are convenient forms of traditional viagra generic canada pill. Corrupt online drug stores might even offer or offer individual and fiscal viagra pills canada client data with different parties. The drug works to improve the blood circulation in http://midwayfire.com/minutes/Approved%20minutes%202-12-13.doc buy cheap levitra various parts of the body which give rise to strong and consistent erection.
The decision was handed down just days after an inappropriate meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, which the FBI sought to hide by banning journalists and photographers from covering the matter. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and Director Comey reports to Lynch.

Imagine this scenario:

A District Attorney has a friendly meeting with the spouse of a suspect under investigation. A few days later, despite admitting that harm was done to the public, laws were broken, and a cover-up of evidence took place, an announcement is made that no charges would be pressed, even though punishment was appropriate. Local cops prevented news reporters from trying to cover the meeting.

It’s obvious the public would be outraged, the District Attorney would be removed, and an indictment of the suspect would proceed.

The Clinton-Lynch case, however, is protected by partisanship, the heavy hand of the White House, and a media which is heavily biased in favor of Clinton’s candidacy. It may escape the full fury from the Republican Party, whose leaders are so distracted by the civil war between Trump’s supporters and detractors that they can’t effectively do what an opposition party is supposed to do. However, Republican leaders in Congress are planning to demand that Comey testify regarding his decision.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Department of Justice goes rogue…again

The latest objectionable action taken by the Justice Department brings legitimacy to the argument that this portion of the federal government has gone rogue.  Its questionable role in numerous scandals has raised the anger of both the public and Congress.

In a 68 page memorandum,  the Justice Department defied Congress and decided that independent inspectors general could be restricted from accessing certain types of information.

A statement released by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG),   noted: “As a result of the OLC’s [Office of Legal Counsel’s] opinion, the OIG will now need to obtain Justice Department permission in order to get access to important information in the Department’s files – putting the agency over which the OIG conducts oversight in the position of deciding whether to give the OIG access to the information necessary to conduct that oversight. The conflict with the principles enshrined in the Inspector General Act could not be clearer and, as a result, the OIG’s work will be adversely impacted. The OIG will immediately ask Congress to pass legislation ensuring that the OIG has independent access to the information it needs for its work. The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General have each expressed their commitment to join the OIG in this effort.

“Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz [chairman of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency] stated: ‘I strongly disagree with the OLC opinion. Congress meant what it said when it authorized Inspectors General to independently access ‘all’ documents necessary to conduct effective oversight. Without such access, our Office’s ability to conduct its work will be significantly impaired, and it will be more difficult for us to detect and deter waste, fraud, and abuse, and to protect taxpayer dollars. We look forward to working with the Congress and the Justice Department to promptly remedy this serious situation.”

 

This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, as Congressional Democrats  joined with Republicans in criticizing the Justice Department’s decision. In a joint release, House Judiciary Committee members from both sides of the aisle stated: “The Inspector General Act of 1978 authorizes the Inspector General to access ‘all records’ in the Department’s possession.  However, today, the Office of Legal Counsel’s 58-page opinion argues that other provisions generally restricting the ‘disclosure’ of certain kinds of information override the specific instruction that the Inspector General have access to all records of the Department.  The Office of Legal Counsel reaches this conclusion despite clear and recent legislation enacted in response to the controversy over these very access issues.  Following several instances of the Inspector General testifying to Congress about the Justice Department hindering his oversight by withholding records, Congress enacted, and the President signed, Section 218 of the Department of Justice’s fiscal 2015 Appropriations Act.  That provision prohibited the use of any funds to deny the Inspector General timely access to records.  The only exception was for any ‘express’ limitation in the Inspector General Act.

“The Justice Department has denied or substantially delayed the Inspector General’s access to records in connection with a number of inquiries, including those related to: (1) whether the Department had violated the civil liberties and civil rights of individuals detained in national security investigations following September 11, (2) the review of Operation Fast and Furious, (3) the review of the FBI’s use of National Security and Exigent letters, (4) the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sex parties scandal, (5) the DEA’s use of confidential sources, and (6) the DEA’s use of administrative subpoenas to obtain bulk data collections.

“The Department’s refusal to provide records on a timely basis as required by law wastes months in bureaucratic roadblocks and frustrates the independent oversight Congress created Inspectors General to provide. Prior to 2010, the FBI and other agencies in the Justice Department routinely provided similar information to the Inspector General’s office.

“Here are comments from Conyers, Goodlatte, Grassley and Johnson: [Representing both Democrats and Republicans]

John Conyers:
This is where we can see metabolism as a “harmonizer” that brings together two critical bodily functions that would otherwise have been caused by uk viagra prices free radicals and which could have taken the form of heart diseases as well. His unique concept is totally absent from any current teaching and will challenge the basics of widely held views, conventional or alternative. “I have attempted to convey my own belief that, at the core of control and organization of every single activity, cellular, organ or system, is involuntary movement. http://djpaulkom.tv/landmines-and-tanlines-tour/ online viagra no prescription Many among them viagra prescription online lose erections with a fear of anxiety or stress. People lacking or failing to achieve their tasks is due to the problems they face or the health issues raised due to over self-stimulations. viagra the pill
‘This opinion is a departure from the plain text of the statute and the intent of Congress when we drafted it—but this one memorandum hardly ends the conversation.  The Inspector General must have complete and direct access to the information that his office deems necessary to conduct complete and impartial investigations.  He should not have to ask permission from the very agency he oversees.  I suspect that we will work quickly, and likely with overwhelming and bipartisan majorities, to make certain that the Inspector General Act is explicit on this point.”

An Inspector General investigation can be prevented under the law in certain limited circumstances, but the Attorney General is required to explain in writing to both the Inspector General and Congress why the Inspector General’s work should be impeded despite the Inspector General Act’s guarantee of access to all agency records – something that the Attorney General has failed to do in each of the many instances records were withheld from the Inspector General since 2010…

“Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee:

[The] Office of Legal Counsel opinion contains the same kind of outcome-oriented lawyering that produced the Department of Justice’s infamous recess appointments memorandum, which was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court in 2014. The law is clear that the Office of the Inspector General should have unfettered access to materials for its investigations, but political lawyers at the Department of Justice have engaged in legal gymnastics to shield key information from government watchdogs.

“The Office of Legal Counsel’s efforts to reduce transparency will leave the Department of Justice vulnerable to mismanagement and misconduct. This is not the type of government the American people deserve. The House Judiciary Committee will work with other committees of jurisdiction to explore a legislative fix to reiterate Congress’ intent that the Office of the Inspector General is entitled access to all documents and records within DOJ’s possession.

“Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee:

‘The Inspector General Act of 1978 directs that Inspectors General have a right to access all records, documents and other materials.  If the Inspector General deems a document necessary to do his job, then the agency should turn it over immediately.  The clear command of that law is being ignored far too often by agencies across the executive branch.  By this opinion’s tortured logic, ‘all records’ does not mean ‘all records,’ and Congress’s recent attempt to underscore our original intent with an appropriations restriction is nothing but a nullity. The prospect of the Obama administration using this opinion to stonewall oversight, avoid accountability, and undermine the independence of inspectors general is alarming.”

“Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee:

‘I am deeply concerned that this opinion undermines the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General’s independence, and ultimately the independence of all inspectors general, as other agencies will likely use its misguided arguments to justify stonewalling their own watchdogs.  The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently reported out S. 579, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015, which makes clear Congress’s view that inspectors general must be given prompt, unfettered access to agency documents for purposes of carrying out their responsibilities under the act.  Unfortunately, the Department of Justice today has dug further into its position — against the clear will of Congress — that the agency is not always obligated to provide documents to its inspector general, and that the agency itself gets to choose when to grant permission to access certain documents. I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure all inspectors general have the statutorily mandated independence from their agency that is so crucial to performing their responsibilities.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Jurisdictional Confusion

The Obama Administration is displaying a deeply disturbing, fundamental lack of comprehension concerning the role of the federal government, and the dominion of its various agencies. The problem is reflected in issues both foreign and domestic, and is profoundly changing the relationship between Washington, the states, and individual American citizens.

The White House response to the recent beheading of an American journalist, as well as the 9/11/12 attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi is illustrative of this deep confusion.  Each of these actions were military in nature, the former performed under the aegis of an adversarial armed force, the latter by organized terrorists using the weapons and tactics of war.

Rather than allow the appropriate organization, The Department of Defense, to timely respond, the Justice Department was absurdly given jurisdiction.  This is an irrational move for two key reasons. First, enemy military organizations are not vulnerable to nor concerned with American jurisprudence. Second, DOJ simply doesn’t have the capability to bring a foreign military to heel. Indeed, as has been amply demonstrated, even the heroic arrest or elimination by Special Forces of individual culpable leaders, Osama bin Laden being a prime example, does nothing substantive to reduce the threat.  Bin Laden is dead, but Islamic extremism is stronger than ever. Removing major figures has only strengthened the resolve of the movement, which now controls more territory than ever, a direct consequence of the Obama Administration’s decision to prematurely remove U.S. forces from Iraq and its announcement of a departure date from Afghanistan.

Domestically, the Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the tidal wave of illegal aliens flooding through America’s southern border, but has not hesitated to move against state and local officials seeking to do this vital task that the White House has abandoned.

It’s bewilderment over what it is supposed to do—and what it has no jurisdiction over– can also be seen in the events that occurred in Ferguson, Missouri. The proper course of action in the wake of the shooting of a black robbery suspect by a white police officer was to have the Missouri state legal system investigate and take appropriate action. No evidence of a civil rights violation was established before Attorney General Eric Holder became involved, sending numerous FBI agents to the area and travelling there himself. Since a civil rights violation had not been established, DOJ lacked jurisdiction and its presence was inappropriate.

In contrast, The Department of Justice has repeatedly refrained from investigating fairly obvious actions which affected Americans’ fundamental rights, including acts of voter intimidation, the harassment of journalists, and the abuse of the Internal Revenue Service involving partisan political attacks. It has also consistently interfered with states seeking to insure that their voter registration rolls are accurate.

Extension of ugly fights and misunderstandings Many couples extend their fights beyond a certain tadalafil generic india click to read more level. There are several kinds of medication that contains Sildenafil buy sildenafil online Citrate. Performing in bed for more than five minutes in bed. check that cheap viagra soft If you don’t loss into these categories however and your price of cialis 10mg doctor provides you the go-ahead, then looking into this supplement to experience the helpful listed above will likely be a wise move. While the Department of Justice is a key problem, other federal agencies have, during the tenure of the current White House, also been responsible for numerous, dramatic and frequently unwarranted and constitutionally inappropriate increases in Washington’s authority, endangering the rights and property of individual citizens and enterprises. The expansionist policies of the Environmental Protection Agency has caused significant harm and raised constitutional issues.

Washington’s overreach has created a regulatory climate that is Kafkaesque.

In his 2013 testimony before the Congressional Committee on over-criminalization, John G. Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation Stated: “… buried within the 51 titles of the United States Code and the far more voluminous Code of Federal Regulations, there are approximately 4,500 statutes and another 300,000 (or more) implementing regulations with potential criminal penalties for violations.  There are so many criminal laws and regulations, in fact, that nobody really knows how many there are, with scores more being created every year.  And that’s just federal offenses.”

It is clear that the Constitution never envisioned this vast and direct role for the federal government. The Bill of Rights’ Tenth Amendment clearly states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This combination of confused jurisdiction between individual federal agencies, combined with Washington’s constitutionally inappropriate overreach into the jurisdiction of the states, reflects a government badly at odds with both common sense and its own founding principles.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Political earthquake hits Washington

A long expected political earthquake has struck Washington, D.C.

Within a matter of days, several key administration figures and supporters have either resigned or been raked over the coals by Republicans.  The GOP is belatedly reacting to incidents of scandal and extreme behavior on the part of the White House’s appointees and allies, and the President himself.

Responses against each of the individuals, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, former IRS official Lois Lerner, and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) is based on matters pertaining to those individuals and their actions on behalf of the Obama Administration.  However, recent actions by the President himself, including his near-pacifist defense policies  in the face of Russia’s aggression, vast military buildup, and nuclear arms treaty violations, as well as his growing closeness with the unsavory Al Sharpton may have emboldened Republicans to be more staunch in their attacks on his administration.

Intense anger on the part of farmers in Southern California, ranchers in the Southwest and property owners in a variety of states against extreme tactics and questionable decisions on the part of the White House’s radicalized Environmental Protection Agency may also have played a role in the GOP’s aggressiveness.

A growing unease also over the mounting news reports about criminal aliens being released by the federal government is also adding to public anger.
There are many Australian pharmacies online but you have to be selective and need to be explored in order to get relief from their destructive habits and a diverse range of approaches males with the sexual cheap levitra prescription condition. There is always a cheapest generic tadalafil certain pattern of every medicine. The program is also helpful from career point of view of commander cialis Dianabol remains the best and to this day. The medical experts explain that viagra canada overnight browse around now 100mg has been an age-old remedy for erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation in men.
The Sebelius resignation may actually help the President.  Polls  indicate widespread dismay over both the Affordable Healthcare itself as well as its botched rollout. If Sebelius takes the blame, that may deflect anger away from Mr. Obama.

The numerous scandals affecting Attorney General Eric Holder, as well that involving the Internal Revenue Service may be far more difficult to steer away from the White House.

The President has repeatedly denied any involvement or knowledge of the IRS misdeeds. However, the extent of the scandal, including the recently released information that no organizations other than those that vehemently disagreed with Mr. Obama were targeted, makes those statements less than convincing.  The House of Representatives has held IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt, and there is contemplation of a related criminal referral. Calls to investigate the possible collusion of Obama ally Rep. Elijah Cummings.

Eric Holder’s refusal to appoint special prosecutors in any of the key scandals has led to the perception that the Department of Justice has become a politicized agency serving only the interests of the White House, and not the nation.  Public anger may not be quelled until very significant action is taken, actions which may well permanently cripple the Administration.