(NPR) For the first time, the Justice Department has made public a series of sensitive messages that passed to the highest levels of the agency within hours of an ambush that killed a U.S. border patrol agent along the Southwest border in December 2010, igniting a national scandal over a gun trafficking investigation gone wrong.

Justice officials sent the documents to Congress late Friday evening, only a few days before Attorney General Eric Holder is set to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The email messages show the former top federal prosecutor in Arizona, Dennis Burke, notifying an aide to Holder via email on Dec. 15, 2010 that agent Brian Terry had been wounded and died. “Tragic,” responds the aide, Monty Wilkinson. “I’ve alerted the AG, the acting Deputy Attorney General…”

Only a few minutes later, Wilkinson emailed again, saying, “Please provide any additional details as they become available to you.”

Burke then delivered another piece of bad news: “The guns found in the desert near the murder [sic] … officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about — they were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store.”

Eric Holder has maintained that he first heard about Fast and Furious a few weeks before he testified on May 3rd, 2012. Remember, Issa had this to say back in October

“His chief of staff had intimate details; we have notes in his handwriting that shows that the number two and Eric Holder’s right hand had intimate details for long time,” Issa told CBS’ Bob Schieffer. “One of the questions is, why wouldn’t you tell your boss about a program that had gotten so out-of-control that it had all kinds of people scurrying to try to stop it?”

The aforementioned emails show Holder’s deputy chief of staff Monty Wilkinson discussing the issue. Are we to believe that Wilkinson didn’t pass the information up to Holder? It strains credibility, veracity, reality. Especially when we see this in the emails, as mentioned above

He’s “alerted the AG.” Care to change your testimony, Mr. Holder? At 7:22pm on the same day Burke emailed Wilkinson about the guns. Are we to believe that Wilkinson failed to alert Holder 9 hours later? Are we to believe that Holder was not interested in what was going on in regards to the murder of a US Border Agent?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(NY Times) In what the federal authorities on Thursday called one of the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized the Web site Megaupload and charged seven people connected with it with running an international enterprise based on Internet piracy.

Megaupload, one of the most popular so-called locker services on the Internet, allowed users to anonymously transfer large files like movies and music. Media companies have long accused it of abetting copyright infringement on a vast scale. In a grand jury indictment, Megaupload is accused of causing $500 million in damages to copyright owners and of making $175 million through selling ads and premium subscriptions.

Four of the seven people, including the site’s founder, Kim Dotcom (born Kim Schmitz), have been arrested in New Zealand, the authorities said; the three others remain at large. Each of the seven people — who the indictment said were members of a criminal group it called “Mega Conspiracy” — is charged with five counts of copyright infringement and conspiracy. The charges could result in more than 20 years in prison.

So, we apparently have laws that allow Government to shut down rogue websites which exist solely to share material, much of which is copyrighted. What would SOPA and PIPA do extra? And that is the concern of opponents of the S&P bills. S&P is a vast overreach by government, which would give a bloated, faceless, and unelected bureaucracy the power to police the Internet. Where would one go if they nailed your website for an explanation and relief?

Meanwhile, Anonymous went on a “revenge spree” and took down the websites of the FBI, every domain associated with the DoJ, RIAA, MPAA, EMI, the US Copyright office, and Universal Music, among others. On one hand, this seems extreme: Megaupload was, in fact, stealing content, denying the copyright holders the residuals for their intellectual property, and making tons of money themselves. How would they feel if they wrote a popular song and were denied earnings due to being shared?

On the other hand, via Scared Monkeys, consider

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which defends free speech and digital rights online, said in a statement that, “This kind of application of international criminal procedures to Internet policy issues sets a terrifying precedent. If the United States can seize a Dutch citizen in New Zealand over a copyright claim, what is next?”

Meanwhile, Cracked writer Soren Bowie points out the only argument in favor of SOPA/PIPA . Read carefully.

(Washington Times) Eleven states and the District of Columbia are siding with the Obama administration in the legal battle over the constitutionality of the new health care law, as more than half the states prepare to challenge the law before the Supreme Court.

Attorneys general in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on Friday supporting Congress‘ authority to pass the sweeping legislation, arguing that health care is a national concern because the industry constitutes nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy.

Iowa is rather a shocker, especially with a Republican governor and House. However, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is a…..Democrat. The others are no big surprise, and include, for the most part, the most expensive states to do business in, some of the worst economies in terms of debt, and some of the highest costs of living.

The attorneys general rejected a central argument made by the 26 states challenging the law — that Congress overstepped its authority by passing an “individual mandate” requiring Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a fine.

Instead, they emphasized a key argument made by the administration: that because Americans are legally entitled to health care — and everyone needs health care at some point in their life — Congress can mandate coverage to ensure others don’t have to pay for it.

An interesting argument, but, one that really has little to nothing to do with forcing people to purchase an item because they may possibly use it at some point. This would be the same as requiring every American to purchase a handgun and bullets because they might possibly have to use it at some point. Think these same Liberals would like a federal law like that, based loosely on the commerce clause?

And whether they are “legally entitled to health care” doesn’t follow that the Constitution gives the Central Government the power to only regulate commerce between the states, not what happens in states. The Commerce Clause is more of a key argument by the Obama administration.

Furthermore, the law doesn’t legally entitle people to purchase health insurance across state lines, so, there is no interstate commerce. This can all be moot, though, if Republicans realize that this election cycle isn’t simply about getting rid of Obama. Even if he is defeated, the GOP must retain the House and retake the Senate, otherwise, controlling the White House is moot.

It would all be moot, too, if the Democrats had decided to pass wise legislation that actually deals with the costs of health insurance, rather than a highly partisan piece of legislation which the majority of Americans are against.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference…
The administration had told the justices that their analysis of Ms. Perich’s case should be essentially the same whether she had been employed by a church, a labor union, a social club or any other group with free-association rights under the First Amendment. That position received withering criticism when the case was argued in October, and it was soundly rejected in Wednesday’s decision.
“That result is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “We cannot accept the remarkable view that the religion clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”

I bet the ACLU will be sad. Unbelievable the Obama DOJ believed that religious organizations shouldn’t have the right to practice their Constitutional First Amendment rights. They are pesky things towards the brainwashing agenda of multiculturalism and appeasement. Hat tip: Hot Air

(Fox News Latino) A senior member of the Obama administration said Thursday that the administration plans to change a rule to reduce the time the spouses and children of undocumented immigrants are separated from citizen relatives while they try to win legal status in the United States

Currently, undocumented immigrants must leave the country before they can ask the government to waive a three- to 10-year ban on legally coming back to the U.S. The length of the ban depends on how long they have lived in the U.S. without permission.

The official said the new rule would let children and spouses of citizens ask the government to decide on the waiver request before the undocumented immigrant heads to his or her home country to apply for a visa. The undocumented immigrants still must go home to finish the visa process to come back to the U.S., but getting the waiver ahead of time could reduce the time an undocumented immigrant is out of the country.

The waiver shift is the latest move by President Barack Obama to make changes to immigration policy without congressional action. Congressional Republicans repeatedly have criticized the administration for policy changes they describe as providing “backdoor amnesty” to undocumented immigrants.

It’s not so much Obama showing a clear lack of respect for the People’s House, ie, Congress, as it is 1) Obama attempting to create political issues with which to fight the GOP, and 2), and more importantly, the fact that Obama has never been a real leader, has no skills as a leader, and becomes petulant and therefore unwilling to do the hard work necessary to reach across the aisle and make accommodations with the opposition Party, who represent specific parts of the United States as laid out by the Constitution. Every other president has had to do this, and has worked, or at least attempted to work, with the opposition party. That’s too difficult for Emperor Obama. Funny how he keeps calling himself a “Constitutional Professor”: who’s constitution, Venezuela’s? Iran’s?

That said, if the GOP plays their cards right (sometimes a big “if”), they can use Obama’s unilateral extension of unchecked power grabs against him during the General Election, and perhaps tie it in to the Congressional Democrats. Perhaps some videos of Democrats complaining about Bush unilaterally taking on new powers juxtaposed with Obama actually doing just that.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Politico) The number of officers killed in the line of duty jumped 13 percent in 2011 compared with the year before — and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder condemned the increase as “a devastating and unacceptable trend” that he blamed on illegal firearms.

The number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty rose to 173 this year, from 153 in 2010, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund announced Wednesday. This year’s figure is 23 percent higher than 122 killed in the line of duty in 2009.

So, the guns themselves are illegal? Er, no

Holder said “too many guns have fallen into the hands of those who are not legally permitted to possess them,” in explaining the increase.

So, what does Holder propose to do?

“This is a devastating and unacceptable trend. Each of these deaths is a tragic reminder of the threats that law enforcement officers face each day,” Holder in a statement. “I want to assure the family members and loved ones who have mourned the loss of these heroes that we are responding to this year’s increased violence with renewed vigilance and will do everything within our power — and use every tool at our disposal — to keep our police officers safe.”

You know what else is a devastating and unacceptable trend? Hundreds of Mexicans being killed by guns allowed to walk into Mexico illegally, thanks to operations under the Department of Justice. Also, an AG that lies about it.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Top ten lists at year’s end are always subjective, to be sure. But some lists seem rather obviously out of whack at first glance. Politico’s “Top 10 political blunders of 2011” is one of those lists that is glaring for what isn’t present as opposed to what is. And what isn’t seems to bespeak that Politico wanted to avoid focusing on Democrat failures in a year when there are so many Democrat failures.

Politico bills this list as one of the “worst political strategic decisions” of 2011. Strangely enough, this list contains fully seven GOP “blunders” yet only three Democrat goofs. Some of the GOP blunders are also questionable for any top ten list considering what is missing from the thing.

First we need a rundown on what is on this list, and in the order Politico places them.

• Obama pivots to deficits
• Republicans vote on the Ryan budget
• Tim Pawlenty bets it all on Ames
• Mitt Romney hides
• Rick Perry debates
• Jon Huntsman returns from China
• Mr. Daley goes to Washington
• Mitch and Haley stay home
• Dems pick Charlotte
• John Kasich pushes S.B. 5

Isn’t it fascinating that some of these “top blunders” did not actually result in a major reversal of great import of some type or another? Take the Jon Huntsman point, for instance. Jon Huntsman is not consequential and his decision to enter the GOP primary race instead of staying in China is not going to make much difference to anyone, anywhere. The Mitch Daniels point is also specious for such a list as Daniel’s decision to sit out 2012 did not necessarily end his career. Further the blunder of Democrats picking Charlotte, North Carolina, while certainly a messy proposition fraught with mistakes, is hardly any kind of end of the world goof, is it?

Now let’s talk about what is not on that list. Solyndra is not on that list. How can this be? This is a political blunder of epic proportions. Even the left-wing Washington Post is saying that the decision supposedly based on science and good economics was instead “infused with politics at every level.” Millions of tax dollars were thrown away during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression at a failing company just to suit Obama’s desire to tout his fantasy of “green jobs.”

If you don’t want to pick Solyndra, why you can reach for the debacle of Fast And Furious for inclusion on such a list. Here we have a program that was supposed to track guns used by Mexican narco-terrorists so that these evil cretins could be ferreted out deep in Mexico. Instead, thousands of American guns sold to these criminals right here in America were lost in the Mexican interior and then were turned to kill hundreds of Mexicans and perhaps two U.S. law enforcement officers. Then, making matters worse, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder — an Obama appointee — has lied repeatedly about what he knew about the program and when he knew it. Now over 90 government officials are calling for Holder’s resignation. If this isn’t a major political blunder, what is? This has made Eric Holder an embattled Attorney General, at the least. Yet, it makes no spot on this top ten blunder list.

Another thing missing is GOP House Speaker John Boehner’s blunder with the recent tax fight that seemed to show that he had no control over his own majority in the House of Representatives, revealing him to be somewhat hapless. I’d think that blunder outweighs anything Jon Huntsman could do and it is most certainly a worse blunder than Rick Perry’s debating style in import to the country

I’d also like to assign a bad strategic decision to Obama’s Osawatomie, Kansas speech that he disgorged onto the nation, a speech so filled with class warfare and un-presidential, overly harsh rhetoric. Also, where is Anthony Weiner on this list? Weiner went from one of the most up-and-coming, young Democrats in Congress to a resigned disgrace over his decision to claim that his Internet account was hacked instead of admitting that he sent nudie pictures of himself to some young woman clear across the country. It totally torpedoed his bid to step from Congress to higher office and greater fame. That seems like a major strategic blunder to me. How about you?

While I agree with the Kasich example — his effort to mirror Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s success at paring down union power was a major legislative abortion — I should say that the Democrat’s efforts to recall all sorts of GOP officials in Wisconsin is a bigger failure. Not to mention the idiotic flee-bagging engaged in by Indiana and Wisconsin Democrats during Walker and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniel’s efforts to enact those same fiscally sane measures. Democrat’s fleeing their states early this year to attempt to hamper Republicans efforts to cut state budgets was a huge strategic flop and likely led to their inability to recall Republicans in Wisconsin. It may also lead to stronger GOP support in both Indiana and Wisconsin.

In any case, I could go on and on with blunders that occurred in 2011 that Politico ignored, but I think you get the picture. Granted it is hard to settle on a mere ten examples of any top blunders, but it just seems that some of the “top blunders” Politico chose are not so consequential as those they left off the list.

One of the Old Media’s favorite ways of attempting to hide the ideological track of a story is to somehow forget to mention to which party someone in the news hails or owes fealty to. In this case it is what they don’t report that misleads. This week we find a classic what-they-don’t-say story concerning the judge that blocked sections of South Carolina’s new immigration law.

For those unaware, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel temporarily blocked segments of South Carolina’s new immigration laws because he claimed that some of its provisions impinged on federal prerogatives, things over which the state has no jurisdiction.

The South Carolina law was opposed in court by Obama’s left-wing, activist Department of Justice headed by Eric “Fast And Furious” Holder and a gaggle of civil rights groups and Judge Gergel agreed with these attackers issuing an injunction to stop implementation of the provisions in question.

The Old Media reported a lot of details in the story, of course. We learned all about who opposed the provisions, who scoffed at the injunction, in what District Judge Gergel hailed, and in some of the reports we even get to hear what Republican South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley had to say about it all. But one thing few of these news outlets seemed to report might help readers understand the decision better.

Judge Richard Mark Gergel is an Obama appointee.

So we have an Obama appointee — Eric “Fast And Furious” Holder — attacking a state trying desperately to deal with the illegal immigration problem that other Obama appointees won’t deal with and an Obama appointee — Judge Gergel — agreeing with Obama appointee Holder that the struggling state needs a rebuke.

Yet, the Old Media doesn’t see any need to tell us that Obama appointees are agreeing with Obama appointees against a Republican Governor, here? The fact that Judge Gergel is an Obama appointee isn’t relevant?

Imagine that.

Yes, it somehow slipped Politico’s notice that Gergel is an Obama appointee. The Associated Press made the little oopsie, too. Oh, and Reuters must have given their editors the week off for Christmas or something because they missed this fact. AFP missed it, too. Oh, and Bloomberg forgot to mention Gergel’s Obama connection. Naturally The New York Times didn’t bother with this little fact. Shockingly, the L.A. Times somehow neglected the fact that Gergel was an Obama man. It slipped right past the steely eye of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Even Fox News missed it.

Did anyone note that Judge Gergel was an Obama man? At the time I wrote this only some SC political blogs and a site called the International Business Times bothered to let its reader know that Gergel is an Obama appointee.

Now, we all know that every time we have a Republican president and one of his appointees turns in a judgment that opposes the liberal mindset, the fact that the judge is a GOP appointee is always prominent in the story.

But, gosh darn it, the fact that Judge Gergel is an appointee of the most liberal president in American history just didn’t seem relevant to the Old Media today.

It’s just a little Merry Christmas present to the Old Media’s President Obama.

Ho, ho, ho.

Abdullah Faaruuq, a Muslim “spiritual advisor” and chaplain from Boston-based Northeastern University, was a key speaker at a fundraiser for al Qaeda’s Ma Barker, the criminal female terrorist named Aafia Siddiqui, also known as “Lady al Qaeda.” This man, Faaruuq, is living off American taxpayers yet advocates for his followers to use “the gun and the sword” to advance Islam in America.

The fundraiser for Siddiqui was held at the Islamic Center of Worcester, Mass. on Dec. 8 with the stated goal of raising $30,000 to assist this female terrorist convicted in 2008 of attempting to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.

As Steve Emerson of Family Security Matters reports, Abdullah gave Siddiqui high praise.

“What a brave woman she continues to be, and how much her bravery and her faith and her belief warrants our support at this time,” said Faaruuq, an imam at Roxbury’s Mosque for the Praising of Allah. “It is said that we’re trying to raise $30,000 tonight. I would say it’s better that we’ve raised your awareness and raised your ire, as your anger against a government who would level the charges that they have against this woman and they say she is guilty. I would say she’s only guilty of defending herself.”

In addition to lauding Siddiqui’s “bravery,” Faaruuq also condemned American soldiers, the very people who defend America, as “kafirs,” meaning infidels.

“And if my mother was in the same place,” he said, “she would have took (sic) her West Indian machete and cut her way through those kafirs.”

According to the Northeastern University website, “Imam Abdullah serves as Northeastern University’s Muslim chaplain, as well as spiritual advisor to the Islamic Society student group.” Sadly he is advising students at a public university in the ways of violent jihad. And our taxes go to fund his actions.

Imam Abdullah has for some time been a controversial figure. As part of a violence-advocating, jihad-pushing, terror-funding mosque that was helped to come to fruition by public officials and politicians in Massachusetts, Abdullah has been advocating violence against Americans for years.

No wonder radical Islamists think America is the “weak horse” in the world. We are with our own taxes funding our own home-grown terror supporters like Abdullah.

(LA Times) The final compromise mandates that terrorism suspects thought to have ties to Al Qaeda and planning attacks against the United States be taken into military custody, even those captured in the U.S. In response to some complaints, though, the bill carves out an exemption for U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

The bill also allows the military to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects accused of having ties to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S. That provision specifies that such power cannot be applied to U.S. citizens captured in the U.S.

As I wrote, I never posted anything about this because I was behind the curve on the story. Also, because I spoke with an aide to a politician who said that the language would never survive to make it to the president’s desk. There was too much opposition in the House and Senate.

(The Hill) One of the more controversial provisions of the bill is language that reaffirms the authority of the administration to detain people found to be associated with al Qaeda, and requires military detention for anyone who plots an attack against the United States. In both cases, the bill does not create any new authority to detain U.S. citizens, ensuring their rights to a fair trial, and the military detention language does exempts U.S. citizens.

The redone provisions apparently are more than just giving the POTUS the power to waive indefinite detention for American citizens and legal residents caught on US soil. It gives them the normal legal protections already accorded.

Just to be clear, the final version of HR 1540, National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Subtitle D, Section 1032(b)

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Sections 1031 and 1032 are the ones cited, and the above language comes from the final legislation. They won’t be able to haul off US citizens even if captured outside of the US, nor to lawful residents captured within the US.

While there is still some concern by some Congress critters (who still voted for the bill), the language regarding US citizens is pretty cut and dry, with no exceptions.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.