To Save America
After reading the most recent report on Fast and Furious below, I began to wonder if Congressman Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was going to let Eric Holder do the walking and evade charges of perjury altogether.
This prompted a call to the Congressman’s office to determine what was going on. I was advised by his aide that this is an ongoing investigation and that the information below was in no way a reflection of a lack of interest in Eric Holder. She then advised me, to the contrary, that the Congressman had just been on Fox News and that justice would not be denied. She directed me to the interview on Fox News.
Justice is supposed to be blind in our judicial system, not completely corrupt. As it will be show here, Attorney General Eric Holder brings the word “corruption” to incredibly new heights (or should I say lows). There was a time when an individual was innocent until proven guilty under our justice system. Attorney General Holder changed that. He is perhaps the most corrupt Attorney General in U.S. History. Why not? His boss, Barack Hussein Obama, will be in the same history book with him.
Not only did Holder overturn the guilty verdict in the New Black Panther Voter Intimidation case, but documents now reveal that Holder’s Justice Department was in a well- coordinated relationship with an ACORN affiliate on Project Vote to influence the outcome of the 2012 elections. A thorough documentation of the Justice Department, more aptly called the Injustice Department, uncovered by Judicial Watch can be found here.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. I’m J.C., and I approve this message.
Related posts:
Jeff Stier, The Daily Caller
It is no secret that the government wants to change how we live. Nanny-state officials want people to exercise more, stop drinking soda and stop using tobacco. But few people are familiar with an Obama administration program that gives grants to activist organizations that support unpopular nanny-state laws.
I wouldn’t have known about this multimillion-dollar grant program if I hadn’t followed @lgbttobacco on Twitter, and you may not have known there is a National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Tobacco Control Network funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) if you hadn’t read this article.
Last week, @lgbttobacco directed their followers to a CDC conference call meant to give participants guidance on “Community Transformation Grant” submissions, due June 6th. I took the opportunity to listen in. What I learned shocked me.
The grants, funded through ObamaCare, break new ground in the administration’s attempt to build political support for radical legislation.
Until recently, the federal government attempted to influence local policies only by handing out grants with strings attached. For instance, federal highway dollars were only available to states adhering to the federally mandated drinking age. But why stop there? Now, with the explicit approval of Congress, the Obama administration will be handing out cash to groups the CDC believes will help advance its political mission.
In the CDC conference call last month, officials explained that they’ll be giving grants to community-based non-profits and local government agencies to “build their capacity” to implement policy changes at the local level…
Because the dollars are earmarked for general capacity building, rather than to actually promote or advance a particular piece of legislation, the CDC claims not to run afoul of the law against federal dollars being used for lobbying. But, they claim, they are free to build organizations that will do the lobbying on their own dime.
The CDC doesn’t make secret that they are trying to change policies at the local level. They specifically call for grant applications that would advance both “capacity-building” for and “implementation” of policy changes, focusing on “tobacco-free living, active living and healthful eating.”
Judicial Watch
Chicago—Rod Blagojevich’s onetime chief of staff, John Harris, testified about negotiations between his former boss and President Barack Obama to fill the U.S. Senate seat once held by the commander-in-chief.
Obama’s top aide, Rahm Emanuel, called Harris in 2008 to suggest the then-governor appoint Obama’s close friend Valerie Jarrett, according to Harris’s testimony. Harris was the second witness to take the stand in Blagojevich’s corruption retrial, which is taking place in the same Chicago federal court where he was tried last year. In that eight-week circus the impeached two-term governor got convicted of only one count (lying to the FBI) and the jury deadlocked on all others.
The government dropped a couple of charges the second time around, but Blagojevich is still facing 20 counts, among them attempting to sell Obama’s old Senate seat. Shortly upon taking the stand Tuesday, Harris testified that he and Blagojevich discussed the Senate appointment in October 2008 and Blagojevich asked him “What do you think I can get for this?”
In the first trial Harris testified that Obama sent Blagojevich a list of “acceptable” Senate candidates to fill his old seat. The list included then Illinois Department of Veterans’ Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth, Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky.
Steve Peacock, WND.com
A nonprofit whose vice president is a former Obama administration official has secured a nearly $100 million government contract in Afghanistan, raising concerns with at least one former U.S. State Department insider.
The executive team at International Relief & Development, or IRD, an Arlington, Va.-based organization, includes Alonzo L. Fulgham, whom President Obama in January 2009 had appointed as acting director of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The ex-State Department source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, lamented the revolving door process of officials moving between the public and private sectors, asserting that the potential for waste and abuse is immense.
Specific to Fulgham’s role as IRD VP in the context of the Afghanistan contract, the source said “there is nothing inherently illegal or unethical about it,” but still decried the arrangement as “questionable.”
