You are here: Home / Floyd Reports

Floyd Reports

floydreportslogo2 Floyd ReportsWelcome to the new home of FloydReports.com. Enter for conservative commentary, conservative videos, and conservative news from veteran political expert Floyd Brown,  President of the Western Center for Journalism. If you are a subscriber of FloydReports.com, you will still get the same great content to your inbox, just at a new home. The blog’s move to WesternJournalism.com will allow it to have greater reach and a more powerful server. Please take a look around, and if you have any comments, please use our contact page to reach us.

 

The Most Arrogant Man In The World

June 20, 2012 by 10 Comments

New video parody of the Dos Equis spot “The Most Interesting Man in the World,” illustrating how Obama believes he can just essentially push his agenda regardless of the Congress, which has made many believe he has an arrogant leadership style.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

Recap Of Latest Obama Eligibility Hearing-Part 1

June 20, 2012 by 14 Comments

obama birth certificate Recap Of Latest Obama Eligibility Hearing Part 1

A hearing was held on June 18, 2012; it began precisely at 9 am Eastern Time in Leon County, Florida in the Court of Judge Terry Lewis to decide whether Obama would appear on the ballot in November and whether the lawsuit filed by Mr. Michael Voeltz (a lifelong Democrat) should be dismissed with prejudice.  The same Judge who heard the famous Bush V. Gore (ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States), heard this matter.  This famous case was started in his courtroom at the circuit court level where Judge Lewis presided in 2000 over Florida election statutes as well.

Speaking for the plaintiff was Larry Klayman; his opening statement quoted John Adams, our second President: “We are a Nation of Laws, not Men.” (framing the question for the court, the state of Florida and the Nation in his first utterance.) Mr. Klayman outlined that Florida election law does not operate in a vacuum but in concert with the Constitution of Florida, the United States, and our respective legislature(s).  He showed that each party’s obligations and interests must be read in concert with one another.

This was in stark contrast to Obama’s attorneys and the attorney for Florida’s Secretary of State, who attempted to narrow the issues for the court and Judge Lewis.  The basis for their argument was that since Obama was not in fact “nominated” by the Democratic Party and would not be until September, this action in this court was not ripe and should be dismissed with prejudice.  Their argument was supposedly based on Florida Statute Chapter 103.101, which in their view states that since the election held last February was a “Presidential Preference Primary” election and that Obama ran un-opposed that he in fact was not “nominated” by the Democratic Party and therefore the action in this court was premature.

To dispense with some of the more technical issues, which will be discussed shortly, a synopsis will be presented first.

The basis of the argument came down to a multi-faceted supposition that was construed as a technicality by Obama’s attorneys and the State’s counsel.  In their view, it was operative in the context that the Democratic Party (a private legal entity) controls the nomination process.  To bring some clarity to this issue, it is ludicrous as a “matter of “law” to allow such an argument to stand.  We have in essence three parties to the candidacy of any individual that seeks either a state or federal office.  Therefore, to develop some reasonable logic, we need to look to each party’s rights, duties, and obligations in this process.

Only two of these parties reduce to a matter of law, the actual candidate and the election law within the state that the individual files to declare candidacy. The political parties (Democrats, Republicans, Marxists, Libertarians etc.) are legal entities that control who they will support with their funds, political machinery, and operatives.  They must also meet certain qualifications under law and affirmatively execute certain documents that are filed with either local or state election officials.

Even if a political party chooses to “nominate” and support a given candidate, the candidate must tender the affirmative execution of qualification documents.

These political parties choose whom it is that they will support; the statute makes clear that the people of Florida will know their choice.  They do not as a matter of “law” control the process as to the “legality” of any candidate(s) filing for any office within the borders of any state or for the nation for that matter, which is where their argument fails for Obama and his attorneys.

If we were to accept the argument of Obama and the state of Florida, we must accept the choice that the political party makes and only that choice.  If this position and argument were allowed to stand, the voter’s choice(s) could then be nullified regardless of their choice of candidate after an election, a ludicrous proposition.  Much to the chagrin of Obama, we are not a one-party state and government quite yet in the fashion of the communist party of the defunct Soviet Union, where only their party’s candidates appeared on the ballot.

If we accept Obama’s argument, that is in effect what we would have to accept.

Once again, it is the political parties’ “prerogative” to lend support, not declare who any candidate is; they only choose the declared candidate they wish to financially and cooperatively support.  Therefore, we must look to the “laws” of the state of Florida for any answers to this issue and the legislature’s intent to enjoin the parties in the interests of the Constitution, the candidate, and the people of Florida.

Florida Statutes

Florida law under Chapter 99 (“Candidates”) declares what a candidate must do to become eligible to be placed upon any ballot for public office in Florida.

Chapter 103 discusses “Presidential Electors, Political Parties, Executive Committees, and Members”; Florida statutes are specific as to what must be done when a political party declares a “candidate” that will carry their “brand” of political identity of the nominating party.

It must be assumed that Chapter 103 was written by the legislature to make sure that any citizen of the state of Florida was aware of the “party affiliation” of any “person” who filed for any public office in Florida, or national office. In this matter, of course, for the office of president.

These private legal entities (political parties) do not control who would in fact be placed upon a ballot in the state of Florida. This is affirmed in the statutes that after “nomination” by a political party, the Secretary of State notifies the nominee by certified mail.  Furthermore, the named individual, if they do not intend to run for the office of president, must decline the “nomination” to the Secretary of State.  These safeguards have been legislated so the people of Florida will expressly know if a given candidate has a political party affiliation supporting them in an election.  The action by the individual is considered affirmative so that the political party is not dictating to the “candidate” or the state of Florida who must appear on a general election ballot.

To do otherwise could disenfranchise the electorate and nullify any vote that the “people” could make when they voted their preference of any particular “candidate” for public office in Florida.  The “political party” could otherwise substitute candidates at will even after an election for possibly capricious reasons if these safeguards were not in force.

Chapter 99 (“Candidates”) occurs first in Florida election law and therefore declares what qualifications a “candidate” must posses and would be considered a predicate condition for consideration to any office.   Section 99.061 (“Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office”) declares what must happen for a candidate to be considered qualified for any particular party(s) nomination:

99.061Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office.—

(1)The provisions of any special act to the contrary notwithstanding, each person seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a federal, state, or multicounty district office, other than election to a judicial office as defined in chapter 105 or the office of school board member, shall file his or her qualification papers with, and pay the qualifying fee, which shall consist of the filing fee and election assessment, and party assessment, if any has been levied, to, the Department of State, or qualify by the petition process pursuant to s. 99.095 with the Department of State, at any time after noon of the 1st day for qualifying, which shall be as follows: the 120th day prior to the primary election, but not later than noon of the 116th day prior to the date of the primary election, for persons seeking to qualify for nomination or election to federal office or to the office of the state attorney or the public defender; and noon of the 71st day prior to the primary election, but not later than noon of the 67th day prior to the date of the primary election, for persons seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a state or multicounty district office, other than the office of the state attorney or the public defender.  

Therefore, if we look at these statutes, we will ascertain what must occur for a candidate in-and-of-themselves to become eligible to be placed upon a ballot.  This section of Florida law is shown below for these qualifications in Chapter 99.0955:

 99.0955 Candidates with no party affiliation; name on general election ballot.—

 (1)Each person seeking to qualify for election as a candidate with no party affiliation shall file his or her qualifying papers and pay the qualifying fee or qualify by the petition process pursuant to s. 99.095 with the officer and during the times and under the circumstances prescribed in s. 99.061. Upon qualifying, the candidate is entitled to have his or her name placed on the general election ballot.

 (2)The qualifying fee for candidates with no party affiliation shall consist of a filing fee and an election assessment as prescribed in s. 99.092. Filing fees paid to the Department of State shall be deposited into the General Revenue Fund of the state. Filing fees paid to the supervisor of elections shall be deposited into the general revenue fund of the county.

As can be seen by the above statute, “party affiliation” is not necessary to be placed upon any election ballot in Florida.  Furthermore, these qualifications are the minimal qualifications that a “candidate” must possess to be placed upon a ballot. So why would the legislature create this statute if a “candidate” could only be placed upon a ballot if they needed the endorsement(s) of a political party?  The short answer is they would not!  So, then, why was this statute drafted and made into law?

Again, it can only be seen in the light of the people of Florida to truly know what party was supporting a given “candidate”, not that they controlled the ballot of any person’s name within the state of Florida.  An affirmative action must be performed by the candidates themselves when they file the qualifying documents with the Secretary of State; after they are “nominated” by a political party, they must again affirmatively decline by expressly declining the “nomination” directly to the Secretary of State if they choose not to run.

In Obama’s case the ‘law” is clear as shown below:

101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.-

(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office.

Now that we have examined the applicable statutes of a particular candidate’s qualifications and the express declaration of a candidate’s political party affiliation, we can turn our attention to the particular statute cited by Mr. Klayman, Chapter 102.168 Section 3(b), with the applicable law shown below:

102.168 Contest of election.—

(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.

Mr. Klayman has stated the particular statute that is applicable to this case, much to the admonishment of Obama’s counsel who vehemently opposes such a condition.  The “taxpayer” requirement of the statute is satisfied from section 1, and an election did transpire and was challenged by a “person” of standing to bring a complaint to the circuit court as required in the statute.  Mr. Voeltz has been specific in his complaint on what especially is a defect with Obama, namely his ineligibility to hold office under section 3 (b) shown above.

The statute discusses two reasons: either they are not eligible for “nomination” (again, a reference to a political party) or actual qualification for the office itself.

In Obama’s case, he is not eligible as he is not a “natural born citizen”; however, he is the de-facto nominee of his party and for his attorneys and Secretary of State to believe otherwise is mere folly.  Having them make believe that it is contingent upon the Democrats’ Convention in September is merely obscuring the facts in this case.

If common sense was applied by these men, they would know that Obama is running for president in every state in the union, and by statute, he is already the declared nominee in Florida.

So, pardon me if the authorities are engaging in subterfuge; we can expect that from Obama. However, the Secretary of State for Florida is a real stretch since Obama is “declared” nominated per statute 101.252!

What in essence we have done is lay open the fallacy of the arguments made by Obama and his attorneys, as it is unreasonable to assume that a “private entity” (the Democratic Party) has complete control on who would be placed upon a primary or general election ballot in the state of Florida. If we follow the arguments of Obama’s attorneys, the people are disenfranchised and nullified by the sheer capricious whim of a political party that would be free to place any person upon a ballot in Florida, even against the expressed wishes of any given candidate, again a ludicrous proposition which the “law” precludes.

Part two discusses the actual arguments at the hearing and the position of the parties.

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Dem Blames Bush For Fast And Furious

June 20, 2012 by 18 Comments

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) makes me sick in how far she will bend over backwards as an apologist for Eric Holder and Barack Obama.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: , ,

Respect For The American People AWOL In The Obama Presidency

June 20, 2012 by 3 Comments

Barack Obama speech hand 2 SC Respect for the American People AWOL in the Obama Presidency

Bill O’Reilly was heard on his show recently parroting the all-too-familiar adage about always “respecting the office of the President even if you don’t necessarily respect the president.” The discussion was about Obama’s heated reply to the outbursts of one Texas-based TV reporter who couldn’t wait to speak until the question-and-answer period of the meeting took place. Politico has labeled the incident as – ‘The outburst heard round the world.’

Insult was added to injury when, in the same week as the famous outburst, two other Obama appointees also inserted their worst into the public record by saying not just the ridiculous, but what to some would qualify as downright undignified and disrespectful to the Congress, the Constitution, and virtually every American.

Former New Jersey EPA head and Obama appointee to the nation’s Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, has raised the question of John Q. Public’s ability to read above the fifth grade level. She said “In accordance with the law, we moved forward with sensible, cost effective steps at the federal level on climate, using the Clean Air Act. And I would have a second sentence — see, I can’t write headlines! But it would be something like, ‘The progress at state and local levels, combined with the federal level, does not obviate the need’ — you can’t use obviate, it’s above fifth-grade level!”

This week, and for the past eighteen months, Attorney General Eric Holder has repelled the Congressional Committee with a barrage of obfuscation and smokescreens and then warned the Congress, in a defiantly undignified flip off to that entire body, that he has “no intention of resigning.” In the minds of Americans who now see the Attorney General as a smear against justice are thoughts that Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry had no chance to tell the same Congressional Committee that he had “no intention of dying.”

Nobody really likes a complainer, especially when it is endless chronic dissatisfaction without any credence or foundation. Mr. Obama’s critics have long since risen above the low place of the inveterate complainer. The endless list of indignities and disrespect to American traditions, laws, and conventions is too much a part of the Obama legacy to hide, quash, or deny.

The short list includes disrespect for DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), private sector businesses and entrepreneurs, and religion (attacks on Catholics). It also includes attacks on dignity and American protocol (bowing to a Saudi king); a blast against doctors, insurance companies, and the public with a burgeoning healthcare bill most don’t want; the social shock of being whacked with a giant club labeled “the gay agenda”; and last but not least, the circumventing of the Congress with endless executive orders (900 to date).

Now the Congress and lawful legislative process has been ignored for a move that no American left with a mere pint of blood and a single brain cell does not see as a political move to bolster a shaky re-election bid. The announcement to give amnesty to illegal immigrants is a serious and disrespectful blow to those trying to enter the country legally. It is insulting to states with overburdened welfare and education systems and their respective governors. Why haven’t we considered breaking open all our jails and prisons to find those offenders who have only one non-violent felony on their records and giving our own citizens some of that easy amnesty?

We heard Mr. Obama swear he would defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic at his inauguration. But we also know that to constantly cast all that is foreign, against all that is domestic, is to create a new enemy to the constitution. It is not a new enemy, but one that has always been known and named as ‘the enemy within.’

J. J. Jackson of ‘The Land of the Free’ website said “I hear people in certain sectors of the economy, like the Natural Gas industry, glow about how Obama is ‘for’ them because he is against their competitors (i.e. coal and oil). Most often, I hear about how Obama is ‘for’ the little guy because he is out to sock it to the vile rich. Yet, when you actually look at what Obama does, you see that he is not really ‘for’ any one of these people. As I said, he is just out ‘for’ himself.”

Buying voting blocs through executive orders and promising happier days in Xanadu is the kind of callous disrespect that has been ongoing, unabated, in this administration for nearly four years. It would be easy to say that Mr. Obama is taking on the pathology of the megalomaniac, but pragmatism and reason call for an answer to the malady rather than just railing against it. To get to the nature of the festering, we need to discover the root of the problem and work from that point outward. That would bring us full circle to the question of respecting the office, even if we don’t have so much respect for the office holder. How far can we stretch this bad philosophy to cover a failing and amateurish presidency?

In the New International Version of the Bible, we see that Paul addressed the subject of respect for leaders in part when he said, “Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Ro 13: 7) Christian ministers like to emphasize the “respect” angle of this passage but all too often ignore the very important phrase “Give to everyone what you owe them.”

When we owe something, it is safe to assume that we received something (a product, a service, a loan, a license, or a passage or something of value.) This is why most Americans will tell you that they usually don’t load respect on anyone unless it has been earned. Here is where we see that regardless of how many times O’Reilly raises the ‘respect for the office’ thing, and regardless of Lisa Jackson’s allusion to a nearly illiterate citizenry, we all know what we have seen, read, and witnessed. The bottom line is that we are not getting much respect, and very few Americans are willing to accept a bill from the Obama White House marked “accounts receivable.”

We are only a few months away from our chance to deal with the kind of disrespect we have endured. It is that revered and oft-visited quiet and private little space we call the voting booth. It is there we will voice our refusal to endure any more disrespect and the dissolution of what may be left to our dignity as a nation.

This writer is a firm believer that Mr. Obama has exhibited many behaviors that seem foreign to the American way of life and traditions. The sum total of those behaviors indicates to me that something in his experience or his personality is missing. I long ago came to the conclusion that he, Mr. Obama, simply does not love this country the way our previous presidents have. Adding to that is a streak of hidden motives and a plethora of lies that are now a matter of public record. The words of author Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the author of Crime and Punishment, seem to speak directly to my view of Mr. Obama’s condition.

In his novel The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky penned these telling words: “The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.”

My only question is: why doesn’t someone who Mr. Obama really respects tell these telling words to the President for the rest of us.

We will always respect the office of the president, but on this two way street in these days, we see that all men are not created equal. We see the president’s respect for the environmentalists, the gays, and the immigrants. But this is a nation of 350 million, and from the learned statesmen to those struggling to read at a fifth grade level, we don’t feel or see the respect for our citizens.

http://www.americanprophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles of columnist Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight. Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Liberal Actress: “We Are Not A Post-Racial Society”

June 20, 2012 by 8 Comments

Here, liberal actress Janeane Garofalo implies that racism was behind the outburst by the Daily Caller reporter last Friday. She just doesn’t know when to quit.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

Two Unlikely Colleagues Sound A Wakeup Call

June 20, 2012 by 5 Comments
Fallen Soldier Two unlikely colleagues sound a wakeup call

Inspired by their shared tragic experience, two fathers have forged an unlikely partnership to spread awareness of the growing number of Islamic homegrown terrorists in the U.S. and of the government’s refusal to identify the violent acts of these individuals as acts of terror.

On June 1, 2009, outside a military recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, 23-year-old Army Pvt. William “Andy” Long was shot and killed, and 18-year-old Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded by self-proclaimed jihadist Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe. In an AP interview, Muhammad claimed that his act was not murder because his act was justified, and even that it displayed “common sense.” He related that “U.S. soldiers kill innocent Muslim men and women” and that Muslims need to “strike back.”

Andy’s father, Daris Long and the father of the shooter, Melvin Bledsoe, met in the aftermath of this event under the most grievous of conditions. Even so, they have since formed a friendship and mutual mission to find closure in their shared tragedy by spreading awareness among Americans of the realities of their ordeal, and by demanding that their government identify this tragedy as what it is: a domestic act of Islamic terror.

In an issued statement concerning the death of Andy Long and wounding of Quinton Ezeagwula, the U.S. Army held that there was insufficient evidence to justify their entitlement to Purple Heart awards. This statement seems curious, considering that Army Purple Heart Regulations state that “…each approved award of the Purple Heart must exhibit all of the following factors: wound, injury, or death must have been the result of enemy or hostile act, international terrorist attack, or friendly fire.” This tragedy seems to more than qualify a fallen or injured soldier for this award, and even more so when it is taken into account that Muhammad (Bledsoe) committed his violent act after an extended stay and conversion to Islam in Yemen, a country that known terroristic conspirators and masterminds have called home for years.

Daris Long and Melvin Bledsoe have personally petitioned Congress and the Obama Administration in a public House hearing, demanding that this violent act be officially acknowledged as an Islamic act of terror, and that the fallen and injured soldiers be awarded Purple Hearts. Attorney General Eric Holder, when pressed by Long, refused to admit that this incident was an act of Islamic terror. He stated that he didn’t want to “speak negatively about a religion.” Others of the liberal set of Democrat congressmen seemed to echo his sentiments with politically correct statements of “perspective” and “tolerance.” One of these congressmen even asked Bledsoe if he would describe this incident as “interesting.” In response, Bledsoe differed in saying that this incident was rather “a tragedy.” The majority of congress, however, came together on the Purple Heart issue, among others concerning this incident, in bipartisan agreement. In the days after this hearing, especially in response to Daris’ testimony, Congress authorized a provision to the 2012 Defense Authorization Bill, ordering the Army to award Andy and Quinton the Purple Heart.

The Obama Administration’s statements concerning this issue, following this provision, seem to provide some background for the Army’s stance on this issue, considering the fact that Obama is their commander in chief. Their initial statement related that this crime was tried as a violation of the criminal code of the state of Arkansas, and that passing the bill could create appellate issues. Then, on May 15, 2012 the Obama Administration threatened to veto the bill because of several of its provisions, including the award of Purple Hearts to Andy and Quinton. We should also remember that the shooting at Fort Hood was a similar act of homegrown terrorism, and that those slain and injured in that massacre were also excluded from receiving Purple Heart awards.

Daris Long and Melvin Bledsoe have shown grace and perseverance that serves as an example to us all. They have shown mutual concern and understanding toward each other and toward the nation and have not given up their fight for justice and awareness over the last three years. They have now co-authored a book titled Losing Our Sons and have a website of the same name, Losing Our Sons.com, where their full story can be seen. This website also features a petition available to allow concerned citizens to join their cause.  

Presently, there should be no doubt among Americans that the great majority of those who wear the uniforms of our armed forces take their oath to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, very seriously. They are among the most honorable in this country and have proven themselves and their loyalty to this purpose time and time again. There should also be no doubt that there is now a very real threat to the lives, safety, and freedoms of all Americans in the name of Islamist jihad. As American citizens, we should acknowledge these realities and speak and act accordingly. Our government should also acknowledge these realities, speak and act accordingly, and fittingly honor those most honorable in their employment who give their lives as they bravely serve their country.

Photo credit: TexasEagle (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

Flashback: Obama Criticized Hiding Behind Executive Privilege

June 20, 2012 by 5 Comments

Barack Obama in 2007 told CNN that Executive Privilege was not a good reason to with hold information from Congress.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

Border Patrol Group Calls For Holder’s Resignation

June 20, 2012 by 6 Comments

Radio host Cam Edwards talks to George McCubbin III, president of the National Border Patrol Council. Let’s hope more organizations like this one call for Holder to leave office immediately.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

Will RINOS Kill Fast And Furious Probe Today?

June 19, 2012 by 53 Comments
Eric Holder 10 SC Will RINOS Kill Fast and Furious Probe Today?

Attorney General Eric Holder will meet with Fast and Furious nemesis Congressman Darrell Issa at 5:00 this afternoon in what could mark the end of the Congressional investigation of Barack Obama’s deadly gun smuggling scheme.

Last week, House Republican leaders at last agreed to schedule a vote on the Contempt of Congress charge Issa has long sought to bring against the Attorney General for 8 months of refusing to honor Congressional subpoenas. Deputy Attorney General James Cole quickly responded with a letter to House Government Reform Committee chair Issa, requesting a meeting to discuss ways of avoiding the vote. Issa agreed to meet with the Attorney General, but only if the Justice Department were willing to “…submit a serious proposal for how it intends to alter its refusal to produce critical documents subpoenaed by the Committee…”

One day later, on June 14th, Holder answered with a two page letter outlining the “compromise” offered by the Department. According to the Attorney General, the “extraordinary accommodation” proposed by the DOJ in that letter represents “… a serious, good faith effort to bring this matter to an amicable resolution.”

But based upon the contents of Holder’s letter, the representations of “serious” and “good faith” are outright lies. First of all, Holder’s willingness to “compromise with the Committee” is an insult to the right and authority of Congress to subpoena withheld documents. He then admits that the Department intends to provide documents that are “…outside the scope of the Committee’s interest in the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious…”  In other words, they will be items which the Committee has NOT subpoenaed and in which it undoubtedly has little or no interest!

Instead, Holder will offer an understanding of how the DOJ learned of those “inappropriate tactics” and what eventually prompted it to withdraw its infamous February 4th,  2011 letter to Congress claiming no gunwalking ever took place. And what this means is obvious—the Department will simply persist in its claim that “…until allegations about the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious were made public, [DOJ] leadership was unaware of those tactics.” The Department didn’t know a thing until it was published in the New York Times! 

It’s a scam…a sucker’s game. And Eric Holder is hoping Darrell Issa will step into the role of sucker. And what would prompt the far-too-savy Issa to do something so remarkably stupid? Only the fact that “Darrell Issa is under pressure from House Speaker John Boehner to DROP the Fast and Furious investigation because Boehner sees it as a distraction that could hurt Republicans at the polls.”

As FOX News reported on Monday, “…getting a contempt measure to the House floor could be a problem,” for “both Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor generally are not supportive of the vote against Holder.”

The sell-out in Speaker’s clothing and his weak-kneed leadership colleagues cannot muster the guts necessary to hold a black Attorney General responsible for his crimes. The public, their oath of office, and the Fast and Furious dead be damned! This is an election year, after all. And voters with no intention of voting Republican anyway might be offended.

So Issa might be pressured into TAKING this pathetic Justice Department offering, dropping the Contempt vote scheduled for Wednesday, and announcing an “accommodation” with the sincere Mr. Holder at some point in the future–like after the election, for example.

For months, “Coach is Right” and Western Journalism have warned readers about the supremely gutless, political hack in the Speaker’s chair and his desire to undermine the Fast and Furious investigation, even at the price of allowing Regime thugs to get away with murder. The next 48 hours will tell the tale.

Photo Credit: The Aspen Institute (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

5 Ways Obama Is Sealing His Own Doom

June 19, 2012 by 8 Comments
Obama Wont Apologize For Being Reasonable SC 5 Ways Obama Is Sealing His Own Doom

The plot of Mel Brooks’ 1968 classic film “The Producers” revolves around a crooked Broadway producer who sells 25,000 percent of his play, then HAS to make certain it flops so no one will be looking for any return on their investment. The play’s name “Springtime For Hitler” is purposely selected to insure its failure.

If the play is a success, Brooks’ character, the despicable Max Bialystock, will be seen for the crook that he is.  In 2008, like Max Bialystock, Barack Obama easily promised much much more than he could deliver. The difference between Bialystock’s suckers and Obama’s suckers was that Obama’s should have/could have known better.

Watching Barack Obama’s reelection campaign careening wildly and bouncing off walls begs the question: who are we watching, Barack Obama or Max Bialystock? Could it be that Obama actually doesn’t want to be President anymore and that he WANTS to lose? At this point, he can’t very well walk away- this makes losing the cleanest and easiest way to get out of a job he was never fit for or capable of handling.

Consider Barack Bialystock’s self-destructive moves just since last summer.

Obama has virtually bragged about not wanting the support of the white middle class – America’s largest voting bloc. This one move alone may have sealed his fate. A new Gallup poll shows Obama’s white support has fallen from 44% to 38% since last November.

In January, Barack Bialystock decided he didn’t need Catholic voters, so he backed the Catholic Bishops into a corner with a demand that all employers, including Catholic and other religious institutions, will provide abortion and contraception services in employee medical plans.  It has been estimated that starting this fight with the Catholic Church could cost Barack Bialystock 18 million votes in the most important states.

Last month, President Bialystock decided he had “evolved” far enough to allow him to make a statement in support of gay “marriage.” By doing so, he has found a way to enrage about 20 % of African Americans as indicated by a Public Policy Polling survey done recently in North Carolina.

Now, our theatrical president has decided he is a dictator, and he alone will grant amnesty to 800,000 illegal aliens – because he can – and the Constitution be damned.

President Bialystock probably cinched his Springtime For Hitler “plan” by his refusal to approve the union-job-rich Keystone pipeline and further thumbed his nose at unions when they were most desperate for his help in recalling the “hated” Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Now the biggest union – the AFL-CIO-has announced it is steeply curtailing its financial support for Obama and his Party.

If this isn’t “Springtime for Hitler”, it’s damned close.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,