Tag: Judicial Watch

Judge Orders Hitlery To Answer For ‘Home-Brew’ Server

Judge Orders Hillary Clinton To Answer For ‘Home-Brew’ Server – Gateway Pundit

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order late Friday afternoon ordering former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and two of her most intimate State Department aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to account for, under penalty of perjury, their use of Clinton’s ‘home-brew’ server kept at her Chappaqua, New York home during Clinton’s four-year tenure as secretary, as well as any official documents in their possession.

.

.
The order came in a FOIA lawsuit by Judicial Watch that was re-opened by Judge Sullivan in June after Clinton’s circumvention of the FOIA laws was revealed when news broke of her use of the private server.

Judicial Watch posted the text of the ruling. (Paragraphs added.)

As agreed by the parties at the July 31, 2015 status hearing, the Government shall produce a copy of the letters sent by the State Department to Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin and Ms. Cheryl Mills regarding the collection of government records in their possession.

These communications shall be posted on the docket forthwith. The Government has also agreed to share with Plaintiff’s counsel the responses sent by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. These communications shall also be posted on the docket forthwith.

In addition, as related to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests in this case, the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to: (1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information;

(2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department. If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith;

and (3) request that the above named individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business.

The Government shall inform the Court of the status of its compliance with this Order no later than August 7, 2015, including any response received from Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 31, 2015.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton issued a statement on the ruling.

This blockbuster ruling is the most significant legal development to date in the ongoing Clinton email scandal. Hillary Clinton will now have to answer, under penalty of perjury, to a federal court about the separate email server she and her aides used to avoid accountability to the American people.

This court action shows that the rule of law and public’s right to know will no longer take a back seat to politics. Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration that is covering for her are not above the law.”

.

.

Judicial Watch: Obama Executive-Order Ploy A ‘Criminal Conspiracy’

Watchdog: Executive-Order Ploy ‘Criminal Conspiracy’ – WorldNetDaily

.

.
Following confirmation by the National Archives that President Obama did not sign an executive order to implement the immigration policy he announced to the nation, Washington-based watchdog Judicial Watch has called for an investigation into whether the White House has engaged in a criminal conspiracy to spend taxpayer funds on unauthorized purposes.

“The fact that President Obama did not sign an executive order appears to involve a recognition by the White House that President Obama did not have the authority to make the changes in immigration law outlined in his Nov. 20 speech,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.

Fitton, in an interview with WND, argued executive orders are limited to facilitating the execution of laws, not altering or establishing law.

“Barack Obama did not issue an executive order because he does not have the authority to issue an executive order in this instance,” Fitton said.

He believes White House counsel concluded Obama lacked the authority to defer prosecutions under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program and decided to implement the policy through a memorandum issued by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. The memo was never filed with the Federal Register for a period of public comment, as federal law requires agencies to do when making rules.

“Jeh Johnson did the bidding of his boss, engaging in a political act, not a legal act, that involves misappropriating public funds to open offices and hire employees to implement the directives of Johnson’s memorandum,” Fitton said.

Thursday, as WND reported, the National Archives and Records Administration, responsible for maintaining executive orders, said no executive order allowing millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. was ever signed or filed, confirming WND’s report Wednesday.

In addition, the office of Texas Attorney General and Governor-elect Greg Abbott – who has filed a lawsuit against Obama’s immigration action – told WND it was aware there was no executive order signed by Obama implementing the actions outlined to the nation in his Nov. 20 speech.

Obama did sign two executive orders in Las Vegas the day after his speech. One was a presidential proclamation creating a White House Task Force on New Americans and the other a presidential memorandum instructing the secretaries of State and Homeland Security to consult with various governmental and non-governmental entities to reduce costs and improve service in issuing immigrant and non-immigrant visas.

‘Criminal violations

Fitton noted that according to Johnson’s memo, DHS will defer prosecution for three years and issue work authorization permits to qualified illegal immigrant parents of children who are U.S. citizens.

“I have long maintained there are potential criminal violations of law in the federal government taking money for one purpose and spending it for another,” Fitton commented.

He said the White House’s effort to suggest Obama had signed an executive order to implement his immigration plan had all the earmarks of a cover-up of a criminal conspiracy.

“The federal government cannot spend money to violate immigration laws,” Fitton said, pointing to the Anti-deficiency Act, which prohibits government from creating an obligation to pay money before funds have been authorized.

The penalties for violating that law are spelled out in 31 U.S. Code Section 1350.

“We can look at impeachment as a broad fight between the branches of government,” Fitton said. “But when you have executive branch officials taking actions outside of the law, there ought to be criminal consequences in addition to the constitutional checks that you have with impeachment. I’m saying that these recent executive branch actions on immigration are ripe for criminal inquiry.”

Fitton said Johnson “ought to be worried about going to jail for spending money he does not have the right to spend, including hiring employees to do things there’s no authorization for them to do, including issuing work permits to illegal immigrants.”

“This amounts to a brazen, in-your-face action by Johnson, and it’s all part of the ‘catch me if you can’ Obama presidency. The Three-card Monte game Obama played with the executive order is the kind of thing gangsters do when they say, ‘Let’s not meet here, let’s go outside and meet.’

“Not issuing the executive order has the appearance of fraud,” he said.

Fitton said Obama wants to get credit for ordering the immigration reform, “but when it comes down to brass tacks, there are no fingerprints.”

“Johnson may think issuing a DHS memo is smart, but what he’s really doing is rewriting immigration law like a commissar in the old Soviet system and trying to pass it off as nothing more than prosecutorial discretion. This is not representative government or regular agency rule-making.”

Fitton emphasized the need for a criminal investigation.

“If Washington is serious about the crisis the president has presented us, the Congress would be talking about criminal investigations for the executive branch spending this money without authorization,” he said.

.

.

IRS Parasites Admit To Judicial Watch That They Have Back-Ups Of Lois Lerner’s “Lost” Emails (Video)

Judicial Watch Statement On Discovery Of Backups For “Missing” Lois Lerner IRS Emails – Judicial Watch

.

.
Judicial Watch announced the following developments in the IRS’ missing emails investigation. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated:

Department of Justice attorneys for the Internal Revenue Service told Judicial Watch on Friday that Lois Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search. The DOJ attorneys also acknowledged that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) is investigating this back-up system.

We obviously disagree that disclosing the emails as required would be onerous, and plan to raise this new development with Judge Sullivan.

This is a jaw-dropping revelation. The Obama administration had been lying to the American people about Lois Lerner’s missing emails. There are no “missing” Lois Lerner emails – nor missing emails of any of the other top IRS or other government officials whose emails seem to be disappearing at increasingly alarming rate. All the focus on missing hard drives has been a diversion. The Obama administration has known all along where the email records could be – but dishonestly withheld this information. You can bet we are going to ask the court for immediate assistance in cutting through this massive obstruction of justice.

Here is the second set of sworn declarations by IRS officials in response to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s investigation into the missing emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials. The declarations were provided after close of business on Friday, August 22.

The first meeting was held this afternoon by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, who was appointed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to manage and assist in discussions between Judicial Watch and the IRS about how to obtain any missing records which have been the subject of longstanding Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. IRS (No. 1:13-cv-1559)).

Judge Sullivan has encouraged Judicial Watch to submit a request for limited discovery into the missing IRS records after September 10.

.

.

.

Judicial Watch: Documents Show Clintons Turned State Department Into Racket To Line Their Own Pockets

JW Forces Release Of Clinton State Department Conflict Of Interest Docs – Judicial Watch

.

.
Judicial Watch announced today the release of more than 200 conflict-of-interest reviews by State Department ethics advisers of proposed Bill Clinton speaking and consulting engagements during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. The documents were obtained as result of a federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department on May 28, 2013 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00772)). The lawsuit is ongoing.

June 2011 documents show that the State Department approved a consulting arrangement with a company, Teneo Strategy, led by controversial Clinton Foundation adviser Doug Band. The Clintons ended the deal after only eight months, as criticism mounted over Teneo’s ties to the failed investment firm, MF Global.

Mr. Clinton’s office proposed 215 speeches around the globe. And 215 times, the State Department stated that it had “no objection.”

Mr. Clinton’s speeches included appearances in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Central America, Europe, Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, India and the Cayman Islands. Sponsors of the speeches included some of the world’s largest financial institutions – Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, American Express and others – as well as major players in technology, energy, health care and media. Other speech sponsors included a car dealership, casino groups, hotel operators, retailers, real estate brokers, a Panamanian air cargo company and a sushi restaurant.

“These documents are a bombshell and show how the Clintons turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “How the Obama State Department waived hundreds of ethical conflicts that allowed the Clintons and their businesses to accept money from foreign entities and corporations seeking influence boggles the mind. That former President Clinton trotted the globe collecting huge speaking fees while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy is an outrage. No wonder it took a court order to get these documents. One can’t imagine what foreign policy issues were mishandled as top State Department officials spent so much time facilitating the Clinton money machine.”

Under established protocols of the State Department, and supplemented by a December 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the Clinton Foundation and Obama Presidential Transition Team, a designated ethics official from the State Department’s legal office was assigned to review any “potential or actual conflict of interest” for Mrs. Clinton while she served as secretary of state. Copies of all decisions were sent to a top adviser to Secretary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, who served as counselor and chief of staff at the Department of State.

The Washington Examiner published a report today on the documents by Judicial Watch Chief Investigative Reporter Micah Morrison and Examiner Senior Watchdog Reporter Luke Rosiak. Morrison and Rosiak note that Mr. Clinton “earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy, raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements related to the Clinton Foundation during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.”

According to the State Department documents:

* Mr. Clinton spoke before a UBS Wealth Management audience in Chicago in April, 2012. The State Department document notes that attendees would be “approximately 300-400 ultra-high net worth clients, prospective clients, and UBS Financial Advisers.”

* Mr. Clinton spoke to an event hosted by Wells Fargo in San Francisco in October, 2011. The State Department document notes that the event is “being held for Wells Fargo Private Bank and Wells Fargo Family Wealth Group clients, which are clients that have at least $5 million and $50 million in assets respectively.”

* At a “mutually agreeable date” in April 2010, Mr. Clinton was due to speak at Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut. “This would be a private speech of up to 350 friends and patrons on Mohegan Sun,” the State Department document noted. “The event will not be open to the public. The event will not be publicly advertised.”

* For a speech in Moscow in June 2010 sponsored by the investment bank Renaissance Capital, Mr. Clinton would address the theme of “Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States: Going Global.” The document notes that “Renaissance Capital is an investment bank focused on the emerging markets of Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and sub-Saharan Africa.”

* At the Ritz Carlton in Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Mr. Clinton spoke at a March 2011 ticketed event targeting “the business community in Grand Cayman.”

The potential for conflicts of interest between Hillary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton’s international ventures grew increasingly controversial in late 2008 when the former president released a list of donors to his library and foundation in what he termed “a deal between” Obama “and Hillary.” According to an AP wire story, “Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million to the foundation. Other government donors include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman…” CNN at the time warned that Clinton’s “complicated global business interests could present future conflicts of interest that result in unneeded headaches for the incoming commander-in-chief.”

The controversy deepened further when it was revealed that among those vetting Mrs. Clinton for the job of Secretary of State was Bill Clinton’s former deputy White House counsel Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton family confidant, who, the Washington Post wrote in 1999 “endeared herself to the Clintons with her never-back-down, share-nothing, don’t-give-an-inch approach…” After clearing Mrs. Clinton for the DOS job, Mills was named the incoming Secretary’s Chief of Staff. Ms. Mills was a featured speaker at Bill Clinton’s 2012 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting.

In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Ms. Mills conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White House email records, Judge Royce C. Lamberth called Cheryl Mills’ participation in the matter “loathsome.” He further stated Mills was responsible for “the most critical error made in this entire fiasco… Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to address the problem.” Ms. Mills is currently on the Board of Directors of BlackRock, a leading investment firm. BlackRock is run by Larry Fink who reportedly wanted to be Treasury Secretary for Barack Obama and now, according to another report, is “angling for the job” in a Hillary Clinton administration.

View all the Clintons’ conflict of interest documents here.

.

.

*VIDEO* Judicial Watch: The IRS Has Misled The Courts; They Are In Real Trouble


.

.

Judicial Watch Announces List Of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” For 2013

Judicial Watch Announces List Of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” For 2013 – Judicial Watch

.

.
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released its 2013 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

* Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH)
* CIA Director John Brennanx
* Senator Saxby Chamblissx
* Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
* Attorney General Eric Holder
* Former IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller / Former IRS Official Lois Lerner
* Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano
* President Barack Obama
* Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
* Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

Dishonorable Mentions for 2013 include:

* Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg
* Outgoing Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) / Incoming Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D)
* Former Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
* National Security Adviser Susan Rice

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH):

House Speaker John Boehner has apparently become a master at what Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer calls the “Tollbooth Strategy.” As Schweizer explains in his new book, Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets: “You pay money at a tollbooth in order to use a road or bridge. The methodology in Washington is similar: if someone wants a bill passed, charge them money to allow the bill to move down the legislative highway.” According to Schweizer, Boehner apparently used the Tollbooth Strategy to collect more than $200,000 in political donations from executives just days before holding votes on bills critically important to their industries.

The first bill was the Wireless Tax Fairness Act. Strongly supported by big phone companies like AT&T and Verizon, it sailed through the House Judiciary Committee, and was expected to immediately come to the floor for a full House vote. Instead of scheduling the bill for a vote, however, Boehner allowed it to languish on the calendar for the next three months. What finally prompted Boehner to bring the bill to a vote? As Schweizer explains it: “The day before the vote, Boehner’s campaign collected the toll: thirty-three checks from wireless industry executives, totaling almost $40,000.”

According to Schweizer, two more bills on which Boehner employed the Tollbooth Strategy were the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act and the Small Company Capital Formation Act. Brokers and venture capitalists and investment firms strongly supported the proposed law. Explains Schweizer in Extortion: “The Speaker of the House took in $91,000 in the forty-eight hours of October 30 and 31 from investment banks and private equity firms, two days before the vote. During the same time period, he took in $46,500 from self-described ‘investors’ and another $32,450 from bank holding companies. With the tolls paid, the votes took place on the full House floor. Both passed easily.”

CIA Director John Brennan:

In mid-December 2013, Judicial Watch obtained and released the full transcript of a May 7, 2012, teleconference between then-White House top counterterror adviser (now CIA Director) John Brennan and various TV terrorism consultants in which Brennen revealed that the U.S. and its allies had “inside control over any plot” in its efforts to thwart a May 2012 terrorism bomb plot, thus blowing the cover on undercover agents within al Qaeda.

The Brennan revelation of “inside control” – an intelligence community euphemism for spies within an enemy operation – reportedly helped lead to the disclosure of a previously well-kept secret at the heart of a joint U.S.-British-Saudi undercover terrorism operation inside Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). According to a Reuters May 18, 2012, report:

The next day’s headlines were filled with news of a U.S. spy planted inside Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), who had acquired the latest, non-metallic model of the underwear bomb and handed it over to U.S. authorities.

At stake was an operation that could not have been more sensitive – the successful penetration by Western spies of AQAP, al Qaeda’s most creative and lethal affiliate. As a result of leaks, the undercover operation had to be shut down.

In the transcript obtained by Judicial Watch, Brennan led the teleconference where he addressed the top terror consultants for ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS including Caitlin Hayden, Frances Townsend, Richard Clarke, Roger Cressey, and Juan Zarate. In an apparent attempt to soft-peddle the thwarted terrorist attack, Brennan twice exposed the covert operation; first at the outset of the call, then as the conference drew to a close:

BRENNAN: The device itself, as I think the FBI statement said quite clearly, never posed a threat to the American public or the public… Well, as we, well know, Al Qaeda has tried to carry out simultaneous types of attacks, and so we were confident that we had inside control over the – any plot that might have been associated with this device.

CLARKE: If it gets asked. There was no active threat because we had insider control…

BRENNAN: I would not disagree with the way you put that, at all.

It should also be noted that records obtained by Judicial Watch in May 2012, through a Freedom of Information lawsuit, indicate that Brennan helped orchestrate the administration’s attempt to influence the storyline of the movie “Zero Dark Thirty.” A transcript of a July 14, 2011, meeting between Defense Department officials, including Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers, and filmmakers Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal reveals that Boal met directly with White House officials on at least two occasions regarding the film: “I took your guidance and spoke to the WH and had a good meeting with Brennan and McDonough and I plan to follow up with them; and they were forward leaning and interested in sharing their point of view; command and control; so that was great, thank you,” Boal said according to the transcript. During Brennan’s February 2013 CIA confirmation hearings, he confirmed he had met with Boal “on how White House officials viewed the opportunities and risks associated with a film about the raid that killed bin Laden.”

Brennan, of course, was not the only Obama administration official who attempted to curry favor with “Zero Dark Thirty” filmmakers. In early December Judicial Watch released more than 200 pages of documents from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including a previously unreleased CIA internal report, confirming that former CIA Director Leon Panetta revealed classified information at a June 24, 2011, bin Laden assault awards ceremony attended by filmmaker Mark Boal. Significantly, the entire transcript of the Panetta speech provided to Judicial Watch by the CIA was classified “Top Secret.” More than 90 lines are redacted for security reasons, further confirming that significant portions of the speech should not have been made in front of the filmmaker who lacked top security clearance.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA):

Sen. Saxby Chambliss makes the “Ten Worst” list for what he actually did in 2012, but which was finally exposed in 2013. Just as with House Speaker Boehner, Chambliss’s misdeeds were revealed in Peter Schweizer’s book Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets. In fact, Chambliss is highlighted as one of the key abusers who used leadership PAC loopholes to convert campaign cash into lavish lifestyle upgrades for themselves and their family members.

As the New York Times reported:

The book details the extravagant expenses of Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, for instance, whose leadership PAC spent $10,000 on golf at Pebble Beach, nearly $27,000 at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, and $107,752 at the exclusive Breakers resort in Palm Beach, Fla. The amount Mr. Chambliss spent at the Breakers in the 2012 election cycle, the book reports, is three times what the senator gave to the National Republican Senatorial Committee during the same period.

When Chambliss’s campaign was asked about the flagrantly lavish spending, they responded that all spending was reported according to the law. Though it may be legal, it is a clear abuse. And one has to wonder if the hardworking Georgians who sacrificed their scarce funds to support Chambliss’ re-election would be comfortable knowing their campaign contributions were used to support the “lifestyles of the rich and famous.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

On January 23, 2013, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to congressional committees regarding the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which led to the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American citizens. At times evasive, at other times defensive and aggressive, Clinton delivered her version of events in the days before and after the murders in Benghazi. And, in the end, the Secretary of State pretended to take “responsibility,” but gave a predictable response regarding who is to blame: “…the level of responsibility for the failures… was set at the Assistant Secretary of State level and below,” Clinton said, referring to an investigation of the incident. In other words, this was not my fault.

At one point in her testimony, in what is, perhaps, the epitome of Obama-era contempt for accountability, Clinton yelled “What difference does it make?” in response to a reasonable question about why the attack transpired and why the administration told an obvious lie about an obscure Internet video as the cause of the attack.

If the mere mention of the contrived video scenario triggered Clinton’s emotional outburst, it is certainly understandable. Remember, it was Clinton herself who was instrumental in advancing the false narrative that the video sparked the attacks. For example, at a September 14, 2012, event honoring the victims, Clinton said, “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen the rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful video that we had nothing to do with.” To this day, she has not set the record straight.

In addition to Hillary Clinton’s apparent cover-up of the role she played in the Benghazi tragedy and its aftermath, she left office in another ethical cloud about conflicts of interest in the activities of her longtime top aide Huma Abedin. Abedin left the State Department in February 2013, and in May 2013, Politico broke the story that, since June 2012, she had been working as a “special government employee” (SGE), a consultant position allowing her to represent outside clients while continuing as a top adviser at State. While working as an SGE, Abedin’s outside clients included Teneo, a strategic consulting firm co-founded by former Bill Clinton counselor Doug Band. According to Fox News, Abedin earned $355,000 as a consultant to Teneo, in addition to her $135,000 SGE compensation.

And compounding the corruption scenario were the potential for conflicts of interest between Hillary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton’s international ventures, which grew increasingly controversial in late 2008 when the former president released a list of donors to his library and foundation in what he termed “a deal between” Obama “and Hillary.” According to an Associated Press wire story, “Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million to the foundation. Other government donors include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman…”

Attorney General Eric Holder:

Attorney General Holder has become a regular on the Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians list.

In May 2013, Holder may well have committed perjury when he was involved in a back-and-forth with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) about whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act for publishing classified material. In response to Johnson’s interrogatories Holder made the following statement: “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material – this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”

Since Holder made that statement, NBC news reported that the attorney general had approved a search warrant for the email account and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen. As Hotair.com said at the time: “There is no other way to view this except as a lie. Even if Holder wasn’t under oath, that would constitute a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. It certainly should produce at least a resignation, and almost assuredly would require the appointment of a special prosecutor…”

Time and again in recent years, Judicial Watch has had to take legal action to prevent Holder’s DOJ from bludgeoning states over taking steps to prevent voter fraud. After a June Supreme Court ruling striking down a Voting Rights Act requirement requiring certain states and local jurisdictions to get permission from the DOJ or a federal judge before enacting voting law changes, Holder announced his intention to skirt the law. In a speech in September at a convention of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Holder vowed that the DOJ would find ways to try to accomplish the goals of the section of the law that was struck down.

As a result, Judicial Watch went to court in North Carolina in early December to defend the State of North Carolina against a DOJ lawsuit to prevent enforcement of the state’s recently passed law HB 589, which simply requires that voters present a photo ID before casting their ballots. As PJ Media explains it:

Judicial Watch uncovered collusion between radical leftist groups and the administration to attack voter integrity laws around the nation. Indeed, the [Judicial Watch] brief notes:

On July 29, 2013, a group of political activists attended a meeting at the White House with Attorney General Holder, Labor Secretary (and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights) Tom Perez, and President Obama. Those attending included representatives from the ACLU, the NAACP, and the Rev. Al Sharpton. Mr. Sharpton told an interviewer for MSNBC that, based on what he heard at that meeting, he expected action regarding North Carolina ‘when this governor signs the bill.’

The DOJ is similarly assaulting Texas in federal court as part of this ideological effort to suppress efforts to protect election integrity.

More than a dozen states – including Kansas, Indiana, Tennessee and Wisconsin – have similar laws that require voters to show government-issued photo identification at the polls, and Obama’s attorney general has launched a campaign to challenge them all.

The Holder DOJ is clearly hostile to the idea of one person, one vote, one time.

Yet, even with all of that, Holder’s malfeasance doesn’t stop there. In August Judicial Watch released DOJ documents highlighting over $4.2 million in accrued travel expenses by Mr. Holder from March 2008 until August 2012; of which $697,525.20 were personal travel expenses. All, of course, at taxpayer expense. Add to this Holder’s continued stonewalling on the “Fast & Furious” gun-running scandal and it is all too obvious that Eric Holder’s corruption knows no limits.

Former IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller / Former IRS Official Lois Lerner:

Steve Miller, then head of the IRS, resigned in May 2013, after admitting to the targeting of anti-Obama Tea Party groups during the 2012 presidential election, which he offhandedly tossed off as “horrible customer service.” Under Miller, the IRS purposely stonewalled the approval of nonprofit applications from “Tea Party” and other conservative groups that were seeking tax exempt status. According to a report by the agency’s inspector general released in May 2013, for more than 18 months beginning in early 2010: “The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.”

As reported by CNN:

Among the criteria used by IRS officials to flag applications was a “Be On the Look Out” list, or a BOLO, which was discontinued in 2012 according to the report. The criteria on the BOLO included:

* Whether “Tea Party,” “Patriots” or “9/12 Project” was referenced in the case file.
* Whether the issues outlined in the application included government spending, government debt or taxes.
* Whether there was advocating or lobbying to “make America a better place to live.”
* Whether a statement in the case file criticized how the country is being run.
* Whether it advocated education about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Miller was eagerly aided in his suppression of conservative groups by former IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner. Subpoenaed to testify before Congress in May 2013, Lerner disdainfully refused to answer inquiries, demanding full immunity concerning her role in the targeting scandal. Eventually, the IRS acknowledged that while she was in charge, IRS agents improperly targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status from 2010-2012. Lerner retired from the IRS on September 23 with full benefits, even after an internal investigation found she was guilty of “neglect of duties” and was going to call for her firing, according to news reports.

Subsequent to Lerner’s lavish retirement, Judicial Watch, in October 2013, obtained email exchanges between her and enforcement attorneys at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) indicating that under Lerner’s direction, the IRS provided detailed, confidential information concerning the tax exempt application status and returns of conservative groups to the FEC – in violation of federal law.

Not only did Miller and Lerner deliberately target conservative organizations for IRS harassment, they both lied about it in separate appearances before Congress. In July 2012, Miller was asked at a congressional hearing, “What kind of… action is taking place at this time that you are aware of” to address complaints that groups seeking nonprofit status were being harassed. Claiming that an overload of applications had caused the problem, Miller covered up the fact that he had learned two months earlier that conservative groups were being inappropriately singled out for extra scrutiny. In May 2013, Lerner told a congressional committee that she found out about the harassment when she read about it “in the press” in early 2012. But, according to the http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.html#timelinex, she was informed in June 2011 about the IRS’s BOLO criteria that included words such as “Tea Party” or “patriots.”

The true damage wrought by the Miller/Lerner witch-hunt may never be fully known. One can certainly speculate as to impact the Tea Party movement could have made had Miller and Lerner not cowed much of it into silence with their ruthless, reckless assault on Barack Obama’s political opponents. In short, the Obama IRS duo may have perfected the formula for stealing an election in plain sight.

Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano:

In August 2013 Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stepped down from her post expressing both “pride and regret” – the regret stemming from her failure to help push through the so-called Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. The truth is, however, that Napolitano actually played a major role in doing an end run around existing immigration law by helping President Obama implement his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) directive in lieu of DREAM Act passage.

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch in June 2013 revealed that Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) abandoned required background checks in 2012, adopting, instead, costly “lean and lite” procedures in effort to keep up with the flood of amnesty applications resulting from the DACA directive.

The documents also revealed that, contrary to Napolitano’s claim that DACA applied only to minors who came to this country illegally “http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/women-in-washington-janet-napolitano-on-cyberthreats-immigration-and-baseball-20120706x,” the directive actually created a new avenue of chain migration, whereby immediate relatives of DACA requesters could be approved for amnesty. As a result, according to an agency memo from District 15 Director David Douglas, “some of the districts closer to the U.S./Mexico border have been inundated.”

The Obama/Napolitano stealth amnesty policy received a setback in July 2013 when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas left DACA hanging by a string as he dismissed a challenge strictly due to jurisdictional issues. While the court determined that it did not have authority to hear the case, Judge Reed O’Connor agreed that program is likely unconstitutional, saying, “[T]he Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim challenging the Directive and Morton Memorandum as contrary to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

In an earlier ruling handed down in April, Judge O’Connor stated clearly that, “DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings when the requirements of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) are satisfied.” That section requires the agents to place aliens who are not “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” to the United States into removal proceedings.

DHS malfeasance did not stop there. And, in fact, according to a court order filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on December 13, DHS has actually enabled cartel trafficking of minors, delivering those minors to illegals living inside the United States and completing criminal transactions for illegal immigrants. The court document details a guilty plea from Mirtha Veronica Nava-Martinez for being paid to smuggle a 10-year-old El Salvadoran female into the United States. Nava-Martinez was hired by Patricia Elizabeth Salmeron Santos, the mother of the 10-year-old, who was living illegally in Virginia after being denied legal entry into the U.S. in 2001. According to U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen who wrote the court order: “The DHS officials were notified that Salmeron-Santos instigated this illegal conduct. Yet, instead of arresting Salmeron-Santos for instigating the conspiracy to violate our border security laws, the DHS delivers the child to her – thus successfully completing the mission of the criminal conspiracy. It did not arrest her. It did not prosecute her. It did not even initiate deportation proceedings for her. This DHS policy is a dangerous course of action.”

Napolitano’s legacy is one that has gutted, for political reasons, the very immigration laws she swore to uphold.

President Barack Obama:

President Barack Obama actually tops this “Top Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list for 2013 as the driving force behind so many of the misdeeds. This is Obama’s seventh straight year on the list, dating back all the way to 2007 (in 2006, he earned a “Dishonorable Mention”). He is a master at catch-me-if-you-can, corrupt politics. This year, he has again acted as a one-man Congress, rewriting entire sections of federal law on his own. Not only is his administration secretive and dishonest; its callous disregard for the rule of law undermines our constitutional republic. Examples include:

* Perhaps Obama’s most outrageous actions over the past year were his continual lies about the ability of Americans to keep their own health insurance under Obamacare. According the Free Beacon, Obama misled the American people a total of 36 times between 2008 and 2013 with his promise, “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.” And according to NBC News, Obama knew, even as he repeated his lie, that “more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them:”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date – the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example – the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

* Throughout 2013, the Obama family continued to use the White House as its own personal travel bureau and the taxpayers as their personal expense account.

* Though Obama quickly disavowed any knowledge of the IRS assault on Tea Party and other conservative groups leading up to the 2012 presidential election, the fact is that it was the president himself who fingered the groups for what might be called “special handling.” Consider Obama’s own hostile and aggressive statements, made just as his IRS officials were gearing up their assault:

August 9, 2010: During his weekly radio address, Obama warned of “attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names.” The President said: We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them… you don’t know if it’s a foreign controlled corporation… The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

September 20, 2010: Speaking in Philadelphia, Obama once again warned that “nobody knows” the identities of the individuals who support conservative groups.

September 22, 2010: Speaking in New York, Obama warned against groups opposing his policies “[posing] as non-for-profit social and welfare trade groups” and he claimed such groups were “guided by seasoned Republican political operatives” and potentially supported by some unidentified “foreign controlled entity.”

October 14, 2010: Obama attacked organizations with “benign sounding” names as “a problem for democracy.”

Little wonder that after their boss sounded the call to attack, Obama’s IRS appointees obeyed the command. And even less wonder that, caught red-handed, Obama first claimed total ignorance and, when the ploy failed, simply labeled it all a “phony scandal.”

* According to the Galen Institute, Obama has now unilaterally rewritten the Obamacare law as passed by Congress 14 times by executive fiat, with the majority of those changes coming in 2013. Those changes include such major overhauls as the congressional opt-out, eviscerating the individual mandate, and delaying the employer mandate. The latest Obama fix came on December 20, when he suddenly moved to allow hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their insurance due to Obamacare to sign up for bare-bone “catastrophic” plans. As National Review observed, “Of course, like every other exemption from Obamacare the latest fix is supposed to last only a year, raising the prospect that people will be kicked off their catastrophic coverage as soon as the 2014 election is safely in the political rear-view mirror.”

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV):

Last year, Harry Reid made the Judicial Watch Ten Worst list for his influence-peddling scandal involving ENN Energy Group, a Chinese “green energy” company for which Reid “applied his political muscle” – and which just happened to be a major client of the Nevada law firm in which Reid’s son, Rory, is a principal.

This year Reid makes the Ten Worst list again. His “friends” list is examined by Frontpage.com:

On Monday, Harry Reid’s close friend and donor, Harvey Whittemore was sentenced to two years in prison for funneling more than $130,000 in illegal campaign funds to Sen. Harry Reid’s re-election committee in 2007…

According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, Reid and Whittemore go way back; four of Reid’s sons were hired by the law firm in which Harvey Whittemore was a senior partner. Sen. Reid and Whittemore were involved in very big land deals, including federal legislation to help the development of Coyote Springs.

None of which is surprising, since Reid has long-since made funneling money to his family’s enterprises his stock-in-trade. According to Peter Schweizer, writing for Fox News, “Sen. Reid has sponsored at least $47 million in earmarks that directly benefitted organizations that one of his sons, Key Reid, [RW1] either lobbies for or is affiliated with.”

While not teaming up with family members to fleece taxpayers, Reid was teaming up with President Obama to use executive authority to skirt the law. Obama and Reid have long opposed a proposed nuclear waste dump in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which has already cost U.S. taxpayers an astounding $15 billion, according to various federal audits. So, Obama simply instructed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to decline to conduct the statutorily mandated Yucca Mountain licensing process, essentially destroying the project.

In mid-August, a federal appellate court ruled that Obama “is simply flouting the law.” According to the court, “It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”

Topping off the year, on November 21, 2013, – a day which should live in congressional infamy – Reid gutted the long-standing filibuster rules of the U.S. Senate in order to grease the path for Barack Obama’s court appointees. The new Reid rule prevents the minority party from filibustering any nominations other than nods to the Supreme Court. And to effect the change, Reid first triggered the “nuclear option,” which allows a change to Senate rules by majority vote (and which he had adamantly opposed in 2005, calling it “illegal” and “unAmerican”). Minority Leader Mitch McConnell accused Reid of attempting “break the rules of the Senate… in order to change the rules of the Senate.” Not surprisingly, as the http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303936904579179791038352758x editorialized, an ancillary benefit of the rule change is that it will get judges on the DC Court of Appeals who are more friendly to Reid’s agenda.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:

It’s a wonder Secretary Sebelius was still around to do damage in 2013 after last year’s fiasco for which she appeared on the Ten Most Wanted list. The Obama administration’s own lawyers determined Sebelius could be fired for violating federal law when reports surfaced that she had campaigned for Obama while acting in her official capacity as an executive branch official during the last presidential campaign. This made Kathleen Sebelius the first member ever of a president’s cabinet to be found guilty of violating the Hatch Act.

In 2013, rather than solicit votes, Sebelius solicited financial support for President Obama’s huge health care disaster. In May, Secretary Sebelius was caught hitting health care companies up for cash to fund Obamacare after Congress rejected all of the administration’s requests.

But, that was just for openers – because in October Sebelius redefined the term “incompetence” when she oversaw the disastrous launch of the Obamacare website. As Mercedes Schlapp wrote in US News:

She refused to listen to the IT experts who expressed serious concerns about the launch as early as March of 2013. Henry Chao, deputy chief information officer said in a meeting that he was “pretty nervous” about the exchanges being ready for October 1. Prior to the launch, one insurance executive also stated, “the extent of the problems was pretty enormous.”

Yet the American people are forced to settle for mediocrity from their leaders who play political games rather than deliver effective products.

Pressed by Congress to explain the disastrous, costly website rollout, Sebelius rolled her eyes, shrugged her shoulders and caustically replied, “Whatever” blithely dismissing the lies and the fraud that have become part and parcel of Obamacare. The fact is, were Sebelius in the private sector, she would probably be prosecuted for fraud.

Dishonorable Mentions

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg:

In late December, documents obtained by Judicial Watch revealed that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg apparently used his top mayoral staff to work on Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) – of which Bloomberg is a co-founder – at taxpayer expense. Included in the documents were emails revealing that Bloomberg aid John Feinblatt worked closely with MAIG executive Mark Glaze on the following:

* On December 14, 2013, Glaze and Feinblatt discussed MAIG lobbying efforts in the state of Colorado.
* On the day following the Sandy Hook tragedy, Glaze and Feinblatt conferred on how they could “keep the mayor ahead of congress, the white house, the press.”
* On December 17 and 18 and email exchange makes it clear that Feinblatt was involved in the day-to-day operations of MAIG, including media buys by the organization.
* On December 19, an email from Glaze to Feinblatt indicates that Feinblatt was directly involved in MAIG finances.

Outgoing Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) / Incoming Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D):

The citizens of Virginia got a dubious “twofer” in 2013, as both their outgoing and incoming governors were revealed as having been embroiled in apparently shady dealings, to put it mildly.

In April 2013, outgoing Governor McDonnell became the subject of an FBI probe because of his possible quid-pro-quo dealings with Jonnie R. Williams Sr., the chief executive of Star Scientific, a company that makes a tobacco-derived dietary supplement. Williams allegedly paid $15,000 to cover catering expenses at the June 2011 wedding of McDonnell’s daughter at the time the McDonnell family was actively promoting the supplement. And that’s just the beginning. According to The Washington Post report on the relationship, “Williams’s company donated $28,500 worth of flights to McDonnell’s successful 2009 campaign for governor and $80,000 worth of air travel to his political action committee after the election, the Post reported. Williams also allowed the governor’s family to borrow a Ferrari and stay at a western Virginia vacation home he owns in July 2011.”

In mid-December, federal prosecutors told McDonnell that he and his wife would be charged in connection with the scandal. Senior Justice Department officials delayed the decision, however, reportedly to wait until after McDonnell leaves office.

For his part, incoming Governor Terry McAuliffe is preparing for his inauguration with a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation hanging over his head. Perhaps Mother Jones magazine best explains the latest McAuliffe scandal:

When McAuliffe in 2009 created GreenTech, a now-troubled electric-car company, he turned to an old pal for assistance in courting foreign investors: Tony Rodham, who is best known as one of Hillary Clinton’s embarrassing brothers. A former repo man, prison guard, and private eye, Rodham by then had a long history of trying to cash in on his famous sister’s connections and generally causing problems for her…

But McAuliffe somehow thought Rodham was just the guy to help him with his electric-car venture. Rodham owns a company that solicits foreign investors for American projects (deals that allow these foreign investors secure US visas). GreenTech relied heavily on foreign investors.

According to The Washington Post: “In May, the SEC subpoenaed documents from GreenTech Automotive and bank records from a sister company, Gulf Coast Funds Management of McLean. The investigation is focused, at least in part, on alleged claims that the company ‘guarantees returns’ to the investors, according to government documents.”

Former Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ):

Former three-term Republican Congressman Rick Renzi first made the Judicial Watch Ten Worst list back in 2008, when was indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy, extortion, money laundering and wire fraud. At the time, we said, “He allegedly used his influence on a House Natural Resources Committee to orchestrate a land swap with the federal government that financially benefited himself and his associates. The 49-year-old lawmaker, who owns an insurance business, is also charged with embezzling more than $400,000 from insurance clients to fund his congressional campaign.” Well, now we can drop the “allegedly” – because in June, 2013, Renzi was convicted on 17 counts of extortion, racketeering and other federal charges. And in October, he was sentenced to three years in prison.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice:

Last year, Susan Rice shared Ten Worst dishonors with Hillary Clinton for their dual roles in the high-profile campaign to portray the deadly attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as solely related to a privately produced YouTube video that was offensive to Muslims. On the Sunday following the attack, Rice repeatedly stated on five different network TV news programs that the Benghazi assault had been a spontaneous reaction to an obscure online video mocking Mohammed, rather than a planned terrorist attack.

This year, Rice makes the Ten Worst list all on her own by joining with Barack Obama to add insult to injury by pulling an end-run around the United States Congress. Realizing that after her campaign of deception involving Benghazi, she could not be approved by the Senate for the job of Secretary of State she so clearly coveted, Rice accepted the position of National Security Advisor, which requires no Senate approval. Thus, her duplicity could be rewarded – without the American people having any say whatsoever in the matter.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Politics has no place in our justice system, right Mr. President?

George Zimmerman’s trial, joke that it is, proves that in the PC age in which we live, justice is no longer blind. Justice is now a political tool apparently. Stacy McCain lays out the case against our “post-racial” presidential administration

While I haven’t followed the George Zimmerman trial closely, I have noticed the widespread reaction to the trial, namely, “Why are they even having this trial?” There is no way in hell Zimmerman will be convicted. Some see it as a clear-cut case of self-defense, but everyone who has watched the testimony sees enough “reasonable doubt” in the prosecution’s case that it seems obvious the jury will acquit.

So, once again: Why are they even having this trial? And the answer would seem to be, because the Obama administration wanted it.

Lee Stranahan writes at Breibart.com:

Welcome to Trayvongate, where the President of the United States used both the bully pulpit, the Department of Justice and sly media manipulation to gin up charges of racism in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting. Now that the trial is almost finished and the only act of racism mentioned so far came from the victim–Martin called Zimmerman ‘a creepy ass cracker’ according to testimony–the cynical and repeated use of the race card by the White house is even more abhorrent.
Judicial Watch revealed documents today that proved what Breitbart News reported in April, 2012: that Eric Holder’s Department of Justice took an active role in racially charged rallies in Sanford, Florida and that the Community Relations Service helped force the temporary resignation of Sheriff Bill Lee. That resignation made it appear that Sanford authorities were suspect and possibly complicit in covering up something. . . .

Equally disturbing to me is how the prosecution attempted to introduce a brand new charge at the end of this trial. They know they over charged, they know this was all political, yet, they are still willing to pull these tricks out? I guess justice does not mater much to them either. This ought to scare the hell out of every one of us. Because if it can happen in Sanford Florida……..

Judicial Watch Uncovers USDA Records Sponsoring U.S. Food Stamp Program For Illegal Aliens

Judicial Watch Uncovers USDA Records Sponsoring U.S. Food Stamp Program For Illegal Aliens – Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch today released documents detailing how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program.

.

The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance. Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

The documents came in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made to USDA on July 20, 2012. The FOIA request sought: “Any and all records of communication relating to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals, and migrant communities, including but not limited to, communications with the Mexican government.”

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that USDA officials are working closely with their counterparts at the Mexican Embassy to widely broaden the SNAP program in the Mexican immigrant community, with no effort to restrict aid to, identify, or apprehend illegal immigrants who may be on the food stamp rolls. In an email to Borjon Lopez-Coterilla and Jose Vincente of the Mexican Embassy, dated January 26, 2012, Yibo Wood of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) sympathized with the plight of illegal aliens applying for food stamps, saying, “FNS understands that mixed status households may be particularly vulnerable. Many of these households contain a non-citizen parent and a citizen child.”

The email from Wood to Lopez-Coterilla and Vincente came in response to a request from the Mexican Embassy that the USDA FNS step in to prevent the state of Kansas from changing its food stamp policy to restrict the amount of financial assistance provided to illegal aliens. In a January 22, 2012, article, the Kansas City Star had revealed that the state would no longer include illegal aliens in its calculations of the amount of assistance to be provided low-income Hispanic families in order to prevent discrimination against legal recipients.

The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch in August 2012, include the following:

* March 30, 2012 – The USDA seeks approval of the Mexican Embassy in drafting a letter addressed to consulates throughout the United States designed to encourage Mexican embassy staffers to enroll in a webinar learn how to promote increased enrollment among “the needy families that the consulates serve.”

* August 1, 2011 – The USDA FNS initiates contact with the Mexican Embassy in New York to implement programs already underway in DC and Philadelphia for maximizing participation among Mexican citizens. The Mexican Embassy responds that the Consul General is eager to strengthen his ties to the USDA, with specific interest in promoting the food stamp program.

* February 25, 2011 – The USDA and the Mexican Consulate exchange ideas about getting the First Ladies of Mexico and United States to visit a school for purposes of creating a photo opportunity that would promote free school lunches for low-income students in a predominantly Hispanic school. Though a notation in the margin of the email claims that the photo op never took place, UPI reported that it actually did.

* March 3, 2010 – A flyer advertises a webinar to teach Hispanic-focused nonprofits how to get reimbursed by the USDA for serving free lunch over the summer. The course, funded by American taxpayers, is advertised as being “free for all participants.”

* February 9 , 2010 – USDA informs the Mexican Embassy that, based on an agreement reached between the State Department and the Immigration & Naturalization Service (now ICE), the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) food voucher program does not violate immigration laws prohibiting immigrants from becoming a “public charge.”

As far back as 2006, in its Corruption Chronicles blog, Judicial Watch revealed that the USDA was spending taxpayer money to run Spanish-language television ads encouraging illegal immigrants to apply for government-financed food stamps. The Mexican Consul in Santa Ana, CA, at the time even starred in some of the U.S. Government-financed television commercials, which explained the program and provided a phone number to apply. In the widely viewed commercial the Consul assured that receiving food stamps “won’t affect your immigration status.”

In 2012, Judicial Watch reported that in a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions questioned the Obama administration’s partnership with Mexican consulates to encourage foreign nationals, migrant workers and non-citizen immigrants to apply for food stamps and other USDA administered welfare benefits. Sessions wrote, “It defies rational thinking,” Sessions wrote, “for the United States – now dangerously $16 trillion in debt – to partner with foreign governments to help us place more foreign nationals on American welfare and it is contrary to good immigration policy in the United States.”

“The revelation that the USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Judicial Watch Sues HHS For Records Detailing Grant To Racist Hate Group

HHS Sued For Records Detailing Grant To The National Council Of La Raza – Big Government

I’ve often referred to the “Chicago Way,” wherein politicians pay off special interests with taxpayer monies and favors in exchange for political support. And ever since Chicago’s own Barack Obama took office, we have seen an explosion in this type of corrupt arrangement.

Whether we’re talking about Obamacare favors for union bosses or illegal payments to ACORN and its spinoffs, the Obama administration knows how to take care of its “friends,” and that includes the crazies from “La Raza.”

On July 18, 2012, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seeking access to records detailing taxpayer-funded grants provided by the Centers for Disease Control to the National Council of La Raza (The National Council of “The Race”).

Here’s what we’re after per our FOIA request:

i. Any and all records regarding, concerning or related to the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program grants awarded to the National Council of La Raza between September 11, 2009 and September 20, 2011. This request includes, but is not limited to, the grant application, records regarding the disbursement of grant payments, records of communication regarding the awarding of the grant, and all records related to the management, evaluation, and oversight of the activities funded by the grant.

ii. Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and any official, employee, or representative of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (including, but not limited to, Director Cecilia Muñoz) regarding, concerning, or related to any grants applied for by and/or awarded to the National Council of La Raza between January 20, 2009 and the present.

HHS acknowledged receiving our request on December 13, 2011, and was required by law to respond no later than January 26, 2012. However, as of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, HHS has failed to respond in accordance with FOIA law.

The fact that the National Council of La Raza openly advocates for illegal alien sanctuary policies, such as drivers’ licenses and discounted tuition for illegal aliens, is no secret. But what many people do not realize is that the organization has also been linked to the Mexican reconquista movement, which seeks to conquer the American Southwest and return it to Mexico.

Now, you won’t read about these ties on the NCLR website. The organization works very hard to distance itself from radical “Chicano” organizations so it can maintain powerful friends in both political parties.

But a few years ago, Judicial Watch investigated a radical Mexican separatist school in Los Angeles, California, called Academia Semillas Del Pueblo. (You can read our report here.) And who did we find pumping good money after bad into this failing school? The National Council of La Raza, and another radical organization called M.E.Ch.A., or Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán. (Taxpayers also paid the tab to the tune of $1.6 million per year.)

Unlike the NCLR, which attempts to hide its extremist agenda behind a false public façade, M.E.Ch.A. is brazen and unapologetic about its reconquista agenda. According to the organization’s statement of principles: “We are Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlan reclaiming the land of our birth (Chicana/Chicano Nation). Aztlan belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture… We are a union of free pueblos forming a bronze (Chicana/Chicano) Nation.”

La Raza is well represented in the White House. Cecilia Muñoz previously served as Senior Vice President for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation at the National Council of La Raza. So she was, in effect, a lobbyist for illegal aliens and their Mexican separatist friends. Because her appointment would have violated Barack Obama’s lobbyist ban, the president granted Muñoz an “ethics waiver” so she could join his administration as Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. (Muñoz now serves as the Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.)

According to a Judicial Watch investigation, federal funding for the National Council of La Raza nearly tripled from $4.1 million to $11 million in FY 2010, the year Muñoz joined the Obama administration.

This funding for NCLR and affiliates has come from a variety of Obama administration agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Labor, The Department of Education, and the Centers for Disease Control through its “Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health” (REACH) program. (The stated mission of the REACH program is to “eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health.”)

The Obama administration is clearly embarrassed by its association with this radical organization, as it should be. But embarrassment is not a sufficient reason, contrary to law, to withhold government records. This seems to be a story of a left-wing special interest group benefiting from White House connections at the expense of the taxpayers. And we aim to get to the bottom of it.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Security? Or an exercise in PC?

Chris Wysocki looks at TSA, airport security, and political correctness. But mostly political correctness

Excuse me, is that a bomb in your burqa? Please proceed directly to your gate.

According to Judicial Watch, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napalitano is actually considering waving airport pat downs for Muslim women who consider them offensive.

We mustn’t offend the Muslims!

The demand came last week from the politically-connected Muslim rights organization that serves as the U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Calling the searches “invasive” and “humiliating,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) advises Muslim women wearing religious head covers known as hijabs to reject full-body checks before boarding planes.

Those who are selected for the secondary screenings should remind Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers that they are only supposed to pat down the head and neck and that they should not subject Muslim women to a full-body or partial body pat-down, according to CAIR’s advisory.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is actually considering exempting Muslims as per CAIR’s demands. Madame Secretary confirmed this week that there will be “adjustments” and “more to come” on the issue of Muslim women in hijabs undergoing airport security pat-downs.

Aha. CAIR is dirty, and certainly does not have America’s best interest at heart. So, why would Janet Napolitano ever consider caving to this group? Well because, Napolitano is dumber than a tree stump for one thing. Recall she said our border with Mexico is more secure now than ever before. And she sees people like Chris, and myself as more dangerous that the terrorists CAIR supports behind the scenes. Oh, and of course as Ed pointed a couple of days ago, and as Chris notes, we all know that those darned wheel-chair bound toddlers are the real menace

But toddlers in wheelchairs? TSA makes them do the Full Monty, right out in the open. Because when it comes to hijacking planes, everyone knows just how dangerous those toddlers really are.

What a sick joke! What a sad state! Is there no common sense at all anymore? Or has it been sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness?

 

Why Elena Kagan SHOULD recuse herself from SCOTUS decision on Obamacare

To be blunt, she was a cheerleader for it! There is no way in Hell she should be ruling on this

we already know Elena Kagan huddled with the White House to help craft the legal defense for Obamacare just five months prior to being sworn in as a Supreme Court justice.

A case for recusal doesn’t get much more clear-cut than this. Don’t hold your breath though waiting for Kagan to recuse herself when the Obamacare challenge lands in the Supreme Court; this is exactly why Obama nominated her.

(CNSNews.com) – On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com’s parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

The Justice Department released a new batch of emails on Wednesday evening as its latest response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by CNSNews.com and Judicial Watch. Both organizations filed federal lawsuits against DOJ after the department did not initially respond to the requests. CNSNews.com originally filed its FOIA request on May 25, 2010–before Elena Kagan’s June 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

It is  a joke that this Neo-Marxist was even considered for the highest court, but if she chooses NOT recusing herself? But do not be surprised if she does not recuse herself, I do not believe that she has any respect for our Constitution.

Obama Justice Sued For Picking Which Laws To Enforce

Obama Justice Sued For Picking Which Laws To Enforce – WorldNetDaily

Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has been sued in federal court – again – for picking and choosing which of the nation’s laws it wants to enforce.

The newest case is being brought by Judicial Watch on behalf of the Family Research Council. It focuses on the announcement last winter from Attorney General Eric Holder that his department – assigned the responsibility of defending the U.S. and its laws – simply won’t do that when it comes to the congressionally approved and presidentially signed Defense of Marriage Act.

“When Barack Obama became president, he took an oath to uphold our laws – and not just the ones with which he personally agrees,” said FRC President Tony Perkins.

……………

“If he’ll undermine this law, which one is next? This isn’t just a threat to marriage. It’s a threat to the entire democratic process,” he said.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told WND that that already has begun happening, as evidenced by the Obama administration’s recent decision to stop the deportation of large numbers of illegal aliens, in apparent violation of the nation’s own immigration laws.

The lawsuit is a Freedom of Information Act action, filed this week, and seeking records related to the decision by Holder, and possibly Obama, not to fulfill the requirements of the department to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

“If the Obama administration has nothing to hide, then why stonewall?” said Perkins. “We have serious concerns that the Justice Department wants to hide evidence that it was doing the bidding of campaign donors and homosexual activists from whom Obama will need assistance for his re-election.”

Obama was heavily dependent on voter factions such as the homosexual lobby during his 2008 campaign and is expected to be equally or more dependent on such special interests in 2012.

He catered to those interests during the 2008 campaign by promising to take such actions as the arbitrary declaration that open homosexuality is acceptable in the U.S. military and already has fulfilled much of that promise.

The Defense of Marriage Act was adopted to ensure that only marriages between one man and one woman would be recognized by the federal government. It has been a stumbling block ever since for those who are demanding same-sex duos be given full status as “married” across the nation.

The case is separate from and in addition to an earlier action brought by Judicial Watch itself.

In that case, filed in May, Judicial Watch explained it was seeking details of any influences on the executive decision not to defend DOMA.

At the time, Fitton said, “The institution of marriage is under vicious attack not only by President Obama and the Holder Justice Department, but also by liberal politicians and activist courts at the state level.”

Fitton told WND today that some 130,000 pages of information have been identified by the Justice Department as pertinent as a result of the first lawsuit, and some of that information should be available to Judicial Watch as early as the next few weeks.

He explained the additional lawsuit, which has been assigned to a different judge, raises the profile of the Obama administration actions and increases the pressure on the executive branch to explain its apparent decision to ignore the nation’s law.

He said the new case takes another strike at “the continuing scandal” of the Obama administration.

“It [the decision not to enforce DOMA] would upend the rule of law in the Justice Department,” he said. “If it’s [the rule of law] not there, then where is it?”

The new case on behalf of FRC seeks to determine the “purported basis” for the decision and the “possible influence of homosexual activists.”

It was on Feb. 23, 2011, when Holder stated the Obama administration simply would not defend the nation’s DOMA law. It took only hours for homosexual activists trying to strike California’s constitutional declaration that marriage is between one man and one woman to quote Holder in a motion in the court case over that vote of the people.

“The evidence suggests the nation’s highest law enforcement is refusing the enforce the law to appease another special interest group,” Fitton said.

When Holder made his announcement, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to contract with a private attorney to defend the marriage definition as needed.

Washington’s abandonment of the law also helped prompt a new campaign to defend marriage in America. “Time to Defend Marriage: The Genesis 2:24 Campaign” allows constituents to send letters to members of both the Senate and House.

The campaign to protect marriage enables constituents to send letters to each of the 435 members of the U.S. House and each of the 100 U.S. senators for only $29.99, only a fraction of what postage by itself would cost should someone take on the project alone.

The campaign is being championed by Kenneth L. Hutcherson, senior pastor and co-founder of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Wash., who recently wrote in a column on WND saying the defense of marriage “is a movement I would be willing to lead.”

Battles over the definition of marriage have been hottest in courts in California in recent months, since voters there approved a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, and a homosexual judge who appears to stand to benefit from his own ruling declared it unconstitutional.

But it doesn’t stop there.

In Canada, arguments already are being made in courts that since government prohibitions on same-sex “marriage” have been removed, so should bans on polygamy. A California Supreme Court justice warned of such developments when his court, over his objections, created same-sex “marriage” in the state.

Hutcherson told WND that Christians shouldn’t be surprised when homosexuals seek their own way with American society, because it’s their nature.

The campaign, which also is supported by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, now of MyFamilyTalk.com, as well as Gary Bauer and dozens of other high-profile Christian leaders, says, “Marriage is under attack by zealots who want to redefine the cornerstone institution as one not between a man and a woman – but one between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Nothing will result in the destruction of Western Civilization faster than such a development.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

From the Department of What Could Possibly Go Wrong……

Comes this Fustercluck!

(Judicial Watch) — The economy remains in shambles yet President Obama keeps wasting taxpayer dollars expanding an already bloated U.S. government, this month launching a new office to help build a “diverse and inclusive workforce” at all federal agencies.

The new Office of Diversity and Inclusion will ensure that the entire U.S. government develops comprehensive strategies to drive and integrate diversity and inclusion practices. It will assist the different agencies in building a workforce that “respects individual and organizational cultures” by examining policy options, data trends and employee survey findings.

The goal is to eliminate demographic group imbalances in targeted occupations and improve workforce diversity. To attain this, special initiatives have been created targeting specific groups, including Hispanics, African Americans, American Indians, women and gays and lesbians. The idea is to create a workforce that truly reflects America’s diversity, according to the Obama Administration.

In fact, the Obama executive order creating the new agency assures that it will promote the federal workplace as a model of equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion. It will also establish a coordinated government-wide initiative to promote the cause. The investment is worth it because a commitment to equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion is critical for the federal government as an employer, according to the commander-in-chief.

More “Fundamental Change”  Neo-Marxism

Lawsuit Against Obama DHS Filed To Obtain Stats On Arrested Illegal Aliens

Lawsuit Against Obama DHS Filed To Obtain Stats On Arrested Illegal Aliens – The Examiner

A drunken illegal immigrant with an extensive criminal history killed a Benedictine nun last summer in Virginia. News reports quickly surfaced that the Bolivian man, Carlos Montano, had been released by federal immigration authorities on his own recognizance after previous arrests.

………………………

In a seldom-seen act, a suburban Virginia county is going up against the powerful forces of the federal government by suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records involving thousands of illegal immigrants who were arrested locally and turned over for deportation.

Officials in Prince William County suspect that many of the criminal aliens, like the drunk driver who killed a nun last summer in their jurisdiction, were simply released under Obama’s backdoor amnesty plan. If so, there could be at least 3,000 criminal illegal immigrants roaming around the county, which is part of the Washington Metropolitan area and has a population of around 400,000, according to a non-profit group that investigates government corruption and waste.

Local officials demand to know what the feds did with the illegal immigrants after county authorities turned them over for removal. The feds refuse to divulge the information and have blown off two public-record requests from the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, according to Judicial Watch.

Board Chairman Corey Stewart told Judicial Watch that it’s frustrating that a local government must resort to suing the federal government to get information that should be public and is vital to local law enforcement efforts. He also expressed disappointment in the “lack of cooperation and transparency from DHS.”

The standoff began when Prince William officials discovered that a drunken illegal immigrant with an extensive criminal history killed a Benedictine nun last summer. News reports quickly surfaced that the Bolivian man, Carlos Montano, had been released by federal immigration authorities on his own recognizance after previous arrests. Montano, who had a revoked license, had twice been charged with drunken driving and had been arrested in separate incidents for other traffic-related offenses.

A few months after the nun’s tragic death Judicial Watch sued DHS for documents related to Montano’s case in an effort to answer an important question: Why did federal authorities free him if he had such a serious criminal history?

Earlier this year the agency provided a heavily edited report that nevertheless provides insight into the matter. Essentially, Obama Administration policies giving immigration officials “broad discretion” relating to detention resources allow them to release illegal aliens like Montano.

In any case, Prince William County has transferred more than 4,000 criminal illegal aliens to DHS custody in the last few years and officials want to know their whereabouts. The program is actually part of a local-federal team effort, practiced by municipalities nationwide, that checks the immigration status of every arrestee. It probably defeats the purpose if the feds are releasing the offenders.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Judicial Watch Sues To Get Bin Laden Death Photo

Judicial Watch Sues To Get Bin Laden Death Photo – News Max

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of Defense seeking all photographs and/or video recordings of Osama bin Laden taken during and/or after the U.S. military operation in Pakistan that resulted in bin Laden’s death.

The request to the Defense Department was filed May 3. An identical request was filed with the CIA.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the agencies have 20 business days legally to respond.

“President Obama’s decision not to release the bin Laden photos is at odds with his promises to make his administration the most transparent in history,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch hopes its FOIA requests will provide a mechanism to release these records in an orderly fashion in compliance with the FOIA law. President Obama’s reluctance to spike the football is not a lawful reason for withholding these historic public documents from the American people. We are prepared to go to court to obtain this information.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Uh-Oh! Nanny Bloomberg did some bad things

Yes, we know Bloomberg is a control freak, a Nanny Stater, and generally too consumed with his over-inflated sense of self-importance. But, Pam Gellar has found out that Mayor Nanny ALSO went way, way, way out of his way to help that Ground Zero Terror Training Center, I mean Mosque to come to pass.

The release today of documents, emails and various exchanges between Mayor Bloomberg and radical Rauf and his motley crew of Islamic supremacists shows evidence of collusion and inappropriate political support/favoritism of the Ground Zero mega mosque. It’s worse than we imagined.

Mayor Bloomberg‘s offices went to extraordinary lengths for the radicals trying to build a mega mosque at Ground Zero — even writing a letter to the community board for them, newly released documents show. Is it any wonder that radical Rauf and Daisy the Khan were so confident at the landmark hearings?

Which begs the question: why is the Mayor breaking ethical rules for a slumlord with radical ties whose buildings were in receivership?

The dotty, irrational Mayor has shown no such favoritism towards the rebuilding of the 96-year-old St. Nicholas church at Ground Zero. It remains vanquished by Muslim terrorists, despite the ten-year battle by Church officials, frustrated in their attempts to rebuild.

Judicial Watch filed freedom of information act requests for correspondence between New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf concerning the Islamic mosque and cultural center he plans to build a few blocks from Ground Zero. More here.

The Mayor failed to release these documents back in August. It took an additional six months to get Bloomberg to comply with this request. Now we know why, and what he was hiding.

The  records of communication between the Office of the Mayor and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf concerning the Cordoba Initiative’s proposed Cordoba House project show that the Mayor, on more than one occasion, improperly collaborated with Rauf and co.

Why did Bloomberg help the Cordoba Initiative write its letter to the landmark commission, altering and making suggestions and revisions to Rauf’s letter?

Why did the city intervene on behalf of Rauf in securing the permits from the building department for assembly permits in a building destroyed in the 911 attacks?

Much, much more at Atlas Shrugs. this is very important, and seems to she a very nasty light on the dealings and character of Bloomberg. My question is why would Bloomberg go to such lengths? A perverse need to be “diverse”? Money?  Whatever the reasons, Bloomberg has shown himself to be a truly detestable figure. And a useful idiots for the stealth Jihadists!