How's that transparency working out for you?

Well, the miserable hack that runs the Justice Department has sufficiently politicized his realm and ObamaCare will usher in the inevitable politicization of the Department of Health and Human Services along with Medicare and Medicaid, so who's next on the docket?

For at least a year, the Homeland Security Department detoured requests for federal records to senior political advisers for highly unusual scrutiny, probing for information about the requesters and delaying disclosures deemed too politically sensitive, according to nearly 1,000 pages of internal e-mails obtained by The Associated Press.

The department abandoned the practice after AP investigated. Inspectors from the department's Office of Inspector General quietly conducted interviews last week to determine whether political advisers acted improperly.

The Freedom of Information Act, the main tool forcing the government to be more open, is designed to be insulated from political considerations. Anyone who seeks information through the law is supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose confidential decision-making in certain areas.

But in July 2009, Homeland Security introduced a directive requiring a wide range of information to be vetted by political appointees for "awareness purposes," no matter who requested it.

Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano's political staff with information about the people who asked for records — such as where they lived, whether they were private citizens or reporters — and about the organizations where they worked.

If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican.

This, despite President Barack Obama's statement that federal workers should "act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation" under FOIA, and Attorney General Eric Holder's assertion: "Unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles have no place in the new era of open government."

Excellent. Even when it's not his department, the miserable hack is somehow involved, even if peripherally.

Under the FOIA, people can request copies of government records without specifying why they want them nor are they required to provide any personal information about themselves other than their name and a suitable mailing address so those copies can be sent to them.

Anything related to an Obama regime policy priority, however, was subject to a review as was any information requested by lawmakers (Republicans, perhaps?), journalists, and activist and watchdog groups.

And irony of ironies, the internal DHS email request made by the AP for their investigation was submitted for review by the political advisers.


What grade would you give the regime for openness and transparency?

For some, reading is like, hard

Warning: some heavy reading ahead:

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
of being present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
who is present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
prohibited.

(italics, ours)

As a public service, we've provided the pertinent language of Arizona's illegal immigration law, SB 1070. Well, it's a public service except that what you just read was not the Arizona law but rather Section 834(b) of the California state penal code.

So, are we going to boycott ourselves or because of the fact that seemingly the entire state can be rightly accused of dereliction of duty with respect to enforcing federal immigration laws, we'll just call it a wash and carry on with business as usual?

And speaking of reading, we're going to get some help from our nation's leaders.



Are people like the miserable hack that runs the Justice Department and Janet Napolitano so void of shame that they do not feel the slightest amount of embarrassment when they are called out for opposing legislation they have not yet read? How exactly does that work?

H/T: KT and Hot Air

All you really need to know about the illegal immigration debate in about 2-1/2 minutes (UPDATED)

(OK, in about 7-1/2 minutes. Please scroll down for update)


Clip below is from Mexican President, Felipe Calderon's, address to a joint session of Congress yesterday.

Polite applause for airy and feel-good platitudes regarding U.S.-Mexico cooperation but check out what gets Congress out of their seats and rocking the aisles: slamming the Arizona illegal immigration law, natch (2:00).





Since the clip just shows Calderon standing at the podium, we can only imagine how funny it must've been for Congress to see dude waddle up to there to speak because of the basketball-sized stones he carries around. (Note the miserable hack who runs the Justice Department and Janet Napolitano, two people who admitted to not reading the bill, joining the pander-fest down in front).

And as long as we have merely an "immigration problem", you can count on any legislation generated by Congress will bare scant resemblance to actually enforcing our borders and enhancing our national sovreignty.

All the talk about paying a fine, getting in the back of the line, learning English, taking citizenship classes is just that. Talk. Congress has destroyed any credibility they may once have possessed. They are an utter failure as a legislative body and they are not to be trusted. If their lips are moving, they are lying.


(UPDATE #1): liberated from the comment section, courtesy W.C. Varones

Tom McClintock to Calderon: "Allow me to retort."



Quoting Teddy Roosevelt is now racist.

So, how are we coming along with that war on terror thingy?

Let’s look at some recent developments with respect to the war on terror and see if we can gage by some degree or another if we really are serious about fighting terror.

Back in December, Homeland Secretary, Janet Napolitano said that the Christmas crotch bomber was not part of a larger terrorist plot to which we replied:

Oh, really?

Every single jihadist on the face of this planet be they trained and funded by or affiliated with Hamas, AQ, Hezbollah, the Taliban… even if they are “lone wolves”… whoever, is part of “a larger terrorist plot.”

That larger terrorist plot is called Islamic extremism and every single one of its minions is unified in its hatred for the West and its institutions and belief systems and are fatally committed to its destruction including all who live within it who are not found to be in sufficient compliance to Sharia law.

But if Napolitano and the other powers that be can’t quite grasp that concept, other detained terrorists who have since been able to lawyer-up are making the distinction a little bit easier.

A Tennessee man accused of killing a soldier outside a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station last year has asked a judge to change his plea to guilty, claiming for the first time that he is affiliated with a Yemen-based affiliate of Al Qaeda.

In a letter to the judge presiding over his case, the accused killer, Abdulhakim Muhammad, calls himself a soldier in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and calls the shooting “a Jihadi Attack” in retribution for the killing of Muslims by American troops.

If your memory is a little hazy on the above, don’t be alarmed because this incident which involved the assassination of one Private William Long and the injury of one of Long’s colleagues at the hands of an obvious Islamic jihadist back in June of last year has been effectively swept under the carpet as the Commander-in-Chief who couldn’t get out of his way fast enough to condemn the murder of abortionist, Dr. George Tiller, has still failed to make a single comment regarding the murder of an idividual in his chain of command.

And for some news from a more recent event; from Time Magazine:

The U.S. military's just-released report into the Fort Hood shootings spends 86 pages detailing various slipups by Army officers but not once mentions Major Nidal Hasan by name or even discusses whether the killings may have had anything to do with the suspect's view of his Muslim faith. And as Congress opens two days of hearings on Wednesday into the Pentagon probe of the Nov. 5 attack that left 13 dead, lawmakers want explanations for that omission.

(John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan's view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military's activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report's silence on Islamic extremism "shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become," he told TIME on Tuesday. "It's definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens."

The apparent lack of curiosity into what allegedly drove Hasan to kill isn't in keeping with the military's ethos; it's a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu's The Art of War with its command to know your enemy. In midcareer, they study the contrast between capabilities and intentions, which is why they aren't afraid of a British nuclear weapon but do fear the prospect of Iran getting one.

(italics, ours)

And this from USA Today:

In the wake of a mass shooting allegedly by a military psychiatrist, the Army's top doctor acknowledged his service needs to improve how it manages medical officers, including using more candor in reviewing their officers' performance.

But Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, told USA TODAY there's no evidence his staff "could have predicted" that Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas, "could have become a mass murderer."

(italics, ours)

Because nothing says inactionable intelligence like having a business card that says, “servant of Allah”, a shoddy record of medical performance and inappropriate discussion of his Muslim faith at work, email exchanges with a radical Yemeni cleric and reportedly shouting “Allah Akbar” while he was shooting up Ft. Hood.

Missing all that is one thing. To perpetuate that incompetence once you’ve been caught with your pants down, though, is entirely another and because of that this jack-ass Schoomaker ought to be relieved of his command immediately.

OK. So there you have it. Looks like we’re pretty much on our own and dependent upon the likes of citizen-heros like Todd Beamer and the Flying Dutchman in our fight against Islamic jihad.

We're in the best of hands.

WW()D?

After early pledges by President Obama that he would moderate the Bush administration’s tough policy on immigration enforcement, his administration is pursuing an aggressive strategy for an illegal-immigration crackdown that relies significantly on programs started by his predecessor.

This really shouldn’t come as any surprise because it was part of the Amnesty formula triangulated by the Bush administration. After the pummeling Congress took from their constituents three years ago and which is similar to the beating they are taking now with respect to health care, our governing elites in D.C. claimed they “got the message” on executing what was heretofore thought to be extra-Constitutional duties by, you know, enforcing the border.

This sovereign-state policy has been all the rage with the townies for years but had apparently fell out of favor with our dear leaders in recent times.

Anyway, the triangulation involved claiming they got the message, executing some high profile work-place raids and generally behaving like they actually were concerned with border security and then saying, “O.K. We did that whole enforcement thing you were screaming for – time for Amnesty. We held up our end of the bargain, now it’s time for you to do the same”.

How do we know it’s going down like this? Because Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security said so:

Ms. Napolitano and other administration officials argue that no-nonsense immigration enforcement is necessary to persuade American voters to accept legislation that would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, a measure they say Mr. Obama still hopes to advance late this year or early next.

See? Enforce now. Amnesty later. For an administration that has been woefully lacking in transparency of any shape or form, we’re glad to see they have no compunction towards actually enforcing the law once they make a show of enforcing it for the time being.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Janet Napolitano would appear to view Vets and illegals in somewhat different lights

Here’s Janet Napolitano on State of the Union this past Sunday commenting on her Department's insipid assessment memo with respect to "extremist" groups targeting returning vets.

KING: But when you say will attempt, who are these groups? What do they want to do?

NAPOLITANO: Well, it's a number of groups, almost far too numerous to mention, regrettably so. But some of them, indeed, want to do what happened in Oklahoma City. That is, commit violent acts within the homeland. And again, Department of Homeland Security, we were stood up because of a terrorist act, 9/11. But that came on the heels of Oklahoma City, which was a domestically caused terrorist act. So one of our missions that Congress has given us and that we do is try to keep everybody informed what are the kinds of things that can lead to an act of violence, but, in this case, where are groups recruiting.

(italics, ours)

Far too numerous to mention?

How 'bout giving us just one? Guarantee ya, she can't.

And 9/11 came on the heels of Oklahoma City? There was a full six year gap between the two.

And it's official: Timothy McVeigh has become the Willie Horton of "right-wing extremists". No amount of time can pass nor frequency restrict going right back to that well when all else fails.



And here she is with respect to illegal aliens:

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, Sheriff Joe, he is being very political in that statement, because he knows that there aren't enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.

What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

(italics, ours)

Entering the U.S. is not a criminal act? 8 USC Sec. 1325 would beg to differ.

This is just outstanding. Here's the woman charged with ensuring domestic tranquility, fear-mongering returning veterans without a single shred of solid evidence yet poo-poohing illegal immigration as solely a civil matter.

Yep, we’re in good hands.