I'd tell him not to let the door hit him on the way out...

but I'd really like to see Eric Holder get hit by a door. Hard and repeatedly.

Attorney General Eric Holder to Resign

I honestly cannot recall an official of that rank who was more corrupt and who displayed more bias and favoritism, usually against the majority of our country and our legal system. He was the first "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" to actually display open hatred and contempt for US Law Enforcement, and the blood of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry will forever be on his hands from "Fast and Furious" will never rinse off.

With a record of scandal and malfeasance that goes back to his days working for the Clintons, Eric Holder should never have been allowed back in government service, much less appointed Attorney General. But he was, and it's to the shame of the Obamaites, the media that refused to report on his past misconduct, and every Republican that failed to vigorously oppose him that he got a second chance to do so much wrong under color of law. He truly disgraced his office and the Justice Department and his departure comes six years too late to ever make that right.

Good riddance. Now let's hope that our new Congress and Senate investigate him properly and put him in federal prison where he belongs.

OK for me, but not for thee...

Ex-marine guilty of smuggling chrome-plated AK-47 from Saddam Hussein's honour guard into U.S.

OK, if everything that the media reports about this guy is true--or even part of it--he's probably a scumbag. And only reaching Staff Sergeant after twenty years would suggest that the guy wasn't one of the Corps' best and brightest.

But still--how does anyone from the Justice Department stand up with a straight face and cal this guy a criminal when by smuggling that weapon into the country, he only did on a micro scale what our government did on a macro scale to Mexico? At least his one souvenir AK-47 didn't kill any American Law Enforcement agents, which is something that the Justice Department cannot say about the hundreds of guns that they allowed to be sent to the Mexican drug cartels under Fast and Furious.

Yet no one gets punished for Fast and Furious, and Eric Holder--a public servant paid with our tax dollars--gets a total pass for refusing to provide documents to our own elected representatives.

"This case sends a strong message that we will continue to investigate those who illegally possess and distribute dangerous weapons such as machine guns," Naval Criminal Investigative Service Acting Supervisory Special Agent Albert Nelson said in a statement Tuesday.

Yeah, whatever...

In a just nation, either Joel Miller needs to be cut loose or Eric Holder needs to be given the top bunk in Miller's cell.

Another day, another act of misconduct by Eric Holder

If this racist corruptocrat wasn't in ideological lock-step with Barack Obama, I'd have to suspect that he's got compromising video of Obama, a goat, a small Mexican boy, and a bottle of maple syrup. He should have been fired long ago. Hell, he should never have been appointed just due to his misconduct during the Clinton administration. But like I said--he thinks like Obama, and does things that Obama wants done but cannot publicly call for himself.

This time, instead of doing his job as The People's Attorney (which is what the Attorney General is supposed to be), he's taking a break from smuggling guns to the Mexican drug cartels and prosecuting the CIA officials who worked to help us find bin Laden and he's intervening in an immigration case to stay the deportation of an illegal alien for no reason other than the illegal, Paul Dorman, is a gay guy.

Now I don't have a problem with gay guys per se. If that's you thing, fine. But we do have a law called the Defense of Marriage Act which was passed by Congress and not declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This law, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, is still "law of the land" and valid, and it's Holder's job--and Obama's--to uphold it regardless of their personal opinions on it. We already saw Holder arbitrarily declare this law unconstitutional back in February, acting as if he, not the courts, gets to make that call. That was wrong and should have warranted his rebuke or removal, but Obama wants the support of the gays and radical left, so he's good with letting Holder pretend to be the Supreme Court because elections are coming and he needs all of the special interest friends that he can get.

But now we've got Holder going even further and arguing on behalf of the People of the United States that a guy who is in our country illegally--someone who has absolutely no right to be here--should be allowed to stay just because he's gay and in a relationship with another dude. He's not even arguing that the illegal will face hardship or torture if returned to his home country--Ireland--nor is he explaining why the illegal's gay lover can't just follow him to Ireland. Nope. He's acting now not as the Supreme Court but as a defense attorney--the polar opposite of his actual job--and going against Congress and the mandate of his own office, which is to enforce and uphold our laws.

Holder needs to be removed and he needs to be removed now. And Barack Hussein Obama needs to be held accountable for everything that he's been letting--or telling--his rogue Attorney General to do.

Oh wait--Obama claims that he has no power over Eric Holder. At least that's what he told this 9/11 widow yesterday before he turned his back on her and walked away when she dared ask him a question at Ground Zero.

How about if we just let the gay Irishman stay and we deport Obama and Holder instead?

Barry, Eric and Hillary declaring war on America again, and using American tax dollars to wage it.

The Obama administration plans to file suit challenging Arizona's immigration law, officials told Fox News on Friday.

The confirmation comes after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with a TV station in Ecuador earlier this month that the administration would challenge the law in court, though officials had long said the issue was under review.

Administration officials initially would not confirm Clinton's statement. But an official told Fox News on Friday that while the review is still underway, the decision has already been made that a Department of Justice suit will be filed. The administration at this point is just building its case.

Clinton's announcement was met with outrage Thursday by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law. Brewer told Fox News she's ready for a fight.

"We are not going to back away from this issue," Brewer said. "We are going to pursue it, we're going to be very aggressive," Brewer said. "We'll meet them in court ... And we will win."

In the TV interview, Clinton was asked how the Obama administration was handling the debate over the law when she gave away what may have been an administration secret.

"President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act," the secretary of state responded, before calling for comprehensive immigration reform.

Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have both criticized the Arizona law, but the administration had maintained to that point that its attorneys were reviewing the legislation to determine the next step.

So aside from the fact that we have a Secretary of State who is a loudmouth--apparently giving away the Administration's plans before the Administration was ready to reveal them--we also see that their claims of "waiting for the lawyers to decide..." are lies as well--Barry and Eric's minds are already made up and they're going to declare war on Arizona no matter what the attorneys recommend.

Mexico's drug cartels and MS-13 must be very happy today. Their continued access to our communities has just been vouched for by Obama himself so they have no need to fear ICE or the law enforcement officers in America's heartland.
Most of America supports Arizona on this one however, according to the most recent poll conducted by the (extremely liberal) Washington Post. But then a majority of Americans were opposed to Barry's Stimulus plan and his health care plan too. He just doesn't care, and neither does his Oompa Loompa sidekick, Nancy Pelosi. They'll jam their agenda down our throats no matter how much that We, the People, object, until we rise up and stop them. November, 2010's the best chance for that, folks. If that fails, we may have to start loading magazines.

Odor of a corrupt bargain, indeed.

With all of the arm-twisting and bribes being put out there to coerce a majority of the Democratic Party to go against the will of their voters--most of whom opposed Obamacare--one has to wonder just how far the Obama Administration was willing to go to get those votes.

Well in the case of West Virginia's Congressman Alan Molohan, a representative who was "undecided" until just before the vote, (he then came out enthusiastically for it when it was too late for his constituents to pound him for it) it would appear that a very corrupt bargain indeed may have been struck.

If you recall, Molohan has been under criminal investigation by the US Justice Department for four year now, stemming from very substantial allegations that he used his position as a Congressman to facilitate and profit obscenely from some real estate deals that literally made him a millionaire overnight.

Of course this massive ethical cloud wasn't enough to get Nancy Pelosi to remove him from his position as Chairman of the House Ethics Committee, where he actually controlled the budget of those investigating him on similar lines in the House, but we all know by know that Pelosi's promise to "drain the swamp" and target corruption in the House came with an expiration date--it expired the moment that Democrats became the majority in Congress.

So what happened back in January when Obama was trying to get the support he needed for his unpopular heath care scam? The Justice Department suddenly closed it's investigation of Molohan. And yes, that's the Justice Department run by Eric Holder, a man well known for using his position to gain political support for his bosses, be it the Clintons or Obama. This is the guy who sold pardons and dismissed already-obtained convictions; shutting down an investigation that hadn't been wrapped up yet was probably child's play.

So Molohan's criminal case and the possible future of a few years in federal prison just vanished, and suddenly the Congressman who claimed to be "undecided" on Obamacare turned around and cast one of the final, crucial votes for it.

Coincidence... You decide.

A tale of two potheads

I suppose I should say "two foreign-born, resident alien potheads, one of whom has political clout..."

The story begins for all intents and purposes, when Charlie Castillo, a Canadian-born man of Maltese descent who had lived here virtually his whole life--long enough to raise a family, work for and retire from General Motors--got arrested ten years ago for possession of marijuana.

(Full and rather long story here.)

Charlie Castillo was ordered deported, arrested by ICE this past December (just before Christmas), and tossed out of the country--probably forever--despite having a wife, kids, home and pension here.

Wow. Tough break. But if that's the way it's supposed to work, one would expect it to work that way in every similar case, right? Apparently not, though, at least not if you are a foreign-born British citizen who is also an HIV-positive homosexual and a staunch public critic of the American Conservative movement, particularly Governor Sarah Palin. Andrew Sullivan, political commentator and blogger who has faithfully carried the Democrats' water for years despite not even being eligible to vote in our country's elections, has managed to get a marijuana case against himself dismissed on the grounds that the conviction would harm his efforts to become a US citizen.

(That story here.)

As you can see, even the judge was irked by the blatant special treatment that Sullivan got, apparently due to some back-room deal between the US Attorney's office and Sullivan’s attorney, Robert Delahunt Jr. Notably, this Delahunt is the cousin of U. S. Rep. William D. Delahunt, who as a District Attorney in Massachussetts dismissed Amy Bishop's murder case without explanation after she shot her brother to death in 1986. Clearly the special favors don't fall far from the tree where Delahunts are concerned.

Welcome to America, post-Obama, where the politically-connected are protected and allowed to break our laws with impunity while mere proletarians are subject to the full weight of those same laws. As it stands today, two potheads were arrested. One who has been here since he was a small child has now been separated from his family and booted out of America forever. The other, a man who came here as an adult and has no wife or kids to provide for, gets to stay and continue his petition for permanent residency and eventual citizenship despite having a contagious terminal disease that should have been grounds for barring him from our shores or forcing him out once it was discovered. But this guy has friends in the form of grateful Democrats, so he gets a pass from the Justice Department which is currently run by Obama Appointee Eric Holder, a man with a long history of questionable political pardons and dismissals.

I wonder what Charlie Castillo and his family think about that? I know what US Magnistrate Judge Robert Collings thinks, because he wrote it in his 12-page opinion.

In the Court’s view, in seeking leave to dismiss the charge against Mr. Sullivan, the United States Attorney is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is
quite apparent that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances.

If there were a legitimate reason for the disparate treatment, the Court would view the matter differently. But the United States Attorney refused to allow the Court to inquire into why, in the circumstances of this case where Mr. Sullivan had already been charged with the crime, either a forfeiture of collateral or an adjudication would make a difference in the immigration
application.

But there is more. If, in fact, a determination that Mr. Sullivan had possessed marijuana is a factor which, under immigration law, the immigration authorities are legally charged with taking into account when deciding Mr. Sullivan’s application, why should the United States Attorney make a judgment that, despite the immigration law, the charge should be dismissed because it would “adversely affect” his application?9 If other applicants for a certain
immigration status have had their applications “adversely affected” by a conviction or a forfeiture of collateral for possession of marijuana, then why should Mr. Sullivan, who is in the same position, not have to deal with the same consequences?

In short, the Court sees no legitimate reason why Mr. Sullivan should be treated differently, or why the Violation Notice issued to him should be dismissed. The only reasons given for the dismissal flout the bedrock principle of our legal system that all persons stand equal before the law.

Welcome to Obama's America, where all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Looks like Hollywoods favorite child molester is finally going to face justice

I refer of course to Roman Polanski, the child-molesting bail-jumper who fled the US for shelter in France after pleading guilty to raping a 13 year old girl in 1977, and who has enjoyed wealth and fame and the adoration of his Hollywood peers ever since, all while thumbing his nose at the American judicial system.

Switzerland just snatched his ass up and is offering him to the US, finally putting and end to his days of skiing and fine dining all over Europe, at least in countries that he knew would not honor America's extradition requests.

ZURICH – Director Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss police as he flew in for the Zurich Film Festival and faces possible extradition to the United States for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl, authorities said Sunday.

Polanski was scheduled to receive an honorary award at the festival when he was apprehended Saturday at the airport, the Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement. It said U.S. authorities have sought the arrest of the 76-year-old director around the world since 2005.

"There was a valid arrest request and we knew when he was coming," ministry spokesman Guido Balmer told The Associated Press. "That's why he was taken into custody."

ZURICH – Director Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss police as he flew in for the Zurich Film Festival and faces possible extradition to the United States for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl, authorities said Sunday.

Polanski was scheduled to receive an honorary award at the festival when he was apprehended Saturday at the airport, the Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement. It said U.S. authorities have sought the arrest of the 76-year-old director around the world since 2005.

"There was a valid arrest request and we knew when he was coming," ministry spokesman Guido Balmer told The Associated Press. "That's why he was taken into custody."

In 1977, he was accused of raping the teenager while photographing her during a modeling session. The girl said Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. She said that, despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her.

Of course his actually going to prison for his crimes is still in doubt, since we have Eric "show me the money" Holder sitting in the Attorney General's office. Holder, when a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, brokered the deal where another fugitive felon, Marc Rich, was allowed to return to the US and receive a pardon from then-President Bill Clinton in exchange for hefty donations to Clinton's library fund and his wife's Senate campaign made by Rich's ex-wife Denise. Holder also arranged clemency deals for 16 Puerto-Rican terrorists, again ostensibly to help gain the support of the Puerto-Rican community in New York for Mrs. Clinton's senate run. Eric Holder proved then that justice was merely a commodity to be bought and sold for political or financial gain, and he's shown us just recently that he still plays that game, only for Obama this time, when he dismissed the convictions of three Black Panthers on charges of voter intimidation in Philadelphia.

Polanski certainly has to know what sort of slug Eric Holder is, and if he hasn't already arranged for some cash to flow to Obama or certain key Democrats, I'm sure that he has people working on it. So it's up to us all to keep our eye on the ball and let Holder know that his days of selling pardons and commutations to thieves, terrorists and child molesters is over.

And as for Polanski, I look forward to him finally seeing the inside of a US prison, hopefully one where he can switch from directing to acting...and by "act", I mean act like Ned Beatty in the film Deliverance.

Mexico and media lie about guns again.

So the big news on the headlines now is that an "anti-aircraft machine gun" has just been captured from a Mexican drug cartel, supposedly the first of it's kind discovered by anti-drug forces. ABC News has it, so does the Associated Press. According to the story, the weapon is a "confiscated .50-caliber, anti-aircraft machine gun can fire 800 rounds per minute and is capable of penetrating armor from more than 5,000 feet (1,500 meters). Police on a routine patrol Monday found the gun fitted atop an SUV at a house in northern Sonora state."

They go on to show pictures of the alleged ".50 caliber anti-aircraft weapon", and lo and behold, it's not even close!







That's right--those of you who know guns should easily recognize this gem--it's a World War two-era Browning model 1919A4 .30 machine gun. Not a .50, but just a little .30. And for those of you unfamiliar with such firearms, that's a big difference. It's like mistaking a Ford ranger 1/4 ton pick-up for a semi tractor rig. And this gun's not even set up for anti-aircraft use--it's on a ground tripod, not one suited at all for engaging aircraft, and the traverse and Elevation mechanism is missing, making it a pretty crummy ground gun too.
basically it's a 60+ year old weapon that serves primarily to intimidate peasants just by making a lot of noise.

And lest ye question my credentials or my weapons identification expertise, you only have to go to the search box in the upper left corner of this blog and use "Browning 1919A4" as a search term and you'll see several articles concerning the one that I personally own. Trust me--it's a nice historical item, but long obsolete and hardly as dangerous as the .50 caliber gun that they claimed it is. And again, this one's not even particularly useful either as an anti-aircraft weapon or in any other role without that T&E mechanism.

Authorities did not release any other details about the gun, including its make, where it was manufactured, or where it was sold.

Lemme help you out there, "authorities". It's a Browning 1919A4, caliber .30. It was most likely manufactured here in the good old US of A in during World War Two and subsequently given to some Central or South American country as military foreign aid in the 1960's...probably Mexico. It definitely didn't come from an American civilian gun shop, even though the Mexican government and Hillary Clinton like to claim that 90% of the weapons seized in that country do.

The problem here is that lies like this, if allowed to stand, will eventually become the basis for stricter gun control laws here in our country. Hillary's said that we need more restrictions on our gun ownership to help Mexico, and Eric Holder, Obama's radically anti-gun Attorney General has made the same claim. excuses are being made right now to slam the lid on your gun-buying ability and mine, and deliberate misinformation like this propaganda piece are part and parcel to those efforts even though that claim is just not true. The truth is that the drug cartels in Mexico arm themselves with military-grade weapons from other countries, including many that were originally given or sold to the Mexican government and diverted to the criminal gangs via corrupt Mexican officials. But American gun owners are poised to take the rap for Mexico's corruption and out-of-control crime problem, and our own gun-haters like Clinton and Holder and Obama himself are more than willing to play along with the lie and pretend that the only way to stop Mexico's violent crime is to close US gun shops and shows and ban many types of guns that Americans like to own. This is going to happen unless we stand up and tell our elected servants that we're not going to go along with it and that we'll replace every one of them that wants to go down that road.

And if they really want to keep US guns out of Mexico so badly, you'd think that both our government and the Mexicans would be rushing to build a border wall between the two countries. Such a wall would serve to keep our guns here and Mexico's drugs and citizens in their country, thus solving a lot of problems.

But apparently neither country wants to do anything that drastic. They just want to stop law-abiding Americans from buying and owning guns, particularly the guns that may someday protect them from the well-armed Mexican criminals who decide that it's safer and more lucrative to come here in search of easy prey.

Well here we go...Obama calls for gun control

We all knew it was coming, but I didn't think it would be so soon.

Obama's new attorney General Eric Holder just announced that Obama plans to enact more gun control, starting with a renewal of the old Clinton Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

You folks remember that bill, right? It banned a few scary-looking semi-automatic rifles--forcing manufacturers to create virtually identical copies that were just different enough to fall outside of the ban--and it limited the size of new magazines for our firearms to ten rounds.

This bill also cost the Democrats control of Congress the next election, and when it expired in 2004, no one was sorry other than people like Larry Pratt and Sarah Brady who make their money by ginning up anti-gun hysteria.

Well they want to bring it back now, probably with more restrictions and no sunset provision that will cause it to go away unless renewed. The last one had that, which is why we're not inconvenienced by it any more.

This sort of restriction on what law-abiding Americans can own isn't needed, as these so-called "assault weapons"--semi-automatic copies of military-issue select-fire weapons--are used in less than 1% of gun crimes in this country. source

And that aside, it's also true that violent crime rates in America have been falling for nearly a decade now. Clearly these firearms aren't a problem in this country, and even the advocates of banning them admit that the real goal is simply to help advance the cause of gun control, period.

But now we have a new argument being offered by Obama through Holder. Now they say that we have to prevent Americans from buying and owning these guns because some of them are getting smuggled into Mexico and used by drug gangs. Apparently we have to give up our guns in the name of security for the Mexicans now.

Per the ABC News article,

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

Well I have a common-sense solution that I doubt we'll ever see the Obama administration enact. It's called "Let's get serious and build that border wall."

Seriously, we wouldn't see truckloads of American firearms driven over the border if there was a twenty-foot high double fence topped with razor wire, and a cleared zone several hundred yards wide on either side, lit up with floodlights at night and overseen by towers and cameras and Border Patrol Agents (or soldiers) with guns and the authority to use them on anyone who crosses a "dead-line" near the fence. Yeah, I know that it would also keep out drug runners, terrorists, and people who just want to come here for the welfare, but that's the problem because the Democrats look at that last group as a solid source of eventual Democrat voters. That's going to be the snag, right there.

But it makes perfect sense to me to build a credible wall from the Pacific to the Gulf. In line with the need to boost our economy, it would create a ton of jobs, both in it's construction and also in it's monitoring and maintenance, and it would serve to keep the drugs, terrorists and illegal aliens out of our country and our guns in. Everybody wins.

But that sort of common sense isn't common in Washington, DC. So if you haven't bought that AR-15 that you've been wanting, you'd better hustle and grab one while you still can. Granted the panic-buyers and speculators hoping to re-sell them later at a huge profit have already scooped most of them up, but the manufacturers are working to crank out as many as they can right now, so if you're patient, you can still turn them up at a fair price as of this writing. Lagniappe and I aren't really worried because we have ours, but I may still have to grab a couple more before the door closes, just the same.Lagniappe says: "Fear the government that fears armed dogs!"