Justice Dept: Fast And Furious Secret Wiretaps Revealed

The following was posted on the Roll Call website today. However, as of this writing, the site is unresponsive and appears to be down. In the public interest, we are posting the text from the Roll Call article. It was cross posted on Martinez Report:

In the midst of a fiery floor debate over contempt proceedings for Attorney General Eric Holder, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quietly dropped a bombshell letter into the Congressional Record.
The May 24 letter to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the panel, quotes from and describes in detail a secret wiretap application that has become a point of debate in the GOP’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking probe.
The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.
According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used. [...]
“The wiretap affidavit details that agents were well aware that large sums of money were being used to purchase a large number of firearms, many of which were flowing across the border,” the letter says.
The application included details such as how many guns specific suspects had purchased via straw purchasers and how many of those guns had been recovered in Mexico.
It also described how ATF officials watched guns bought by suspected straw purchasers but then ended their surveillance without interdicting the guns.
In at least one instance, the guns were recovered at a police stop at the U.S.-Mexico border the next day.
The application included financial details for four suspected straw purchasers showing they had purchased $373,000 worth of guns in cash but reported almost no income for the previous year, the letter says.
“Although ATF was aware of these facts, no one was arrested, and ATF failed to even approach the straw purchasers. Upon learning these details through its review of this wiretap affidavit, senior Justice Department officials had a duty to stop this operation. Further, failure to do so was a violation of Justice Department policy,” the letter says.

Chief Justice Roberts Bullied By President Obama

As legal scholars study the Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case, more and more are concluding that Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissenting opinion, striking down the law in its entirety, was once the majority opinion--and that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote at a late stage. If so, it would appear that the Chief Justice may have succumbed to the bullying meted out by President Barack Obama, who attacked the Court in the aftermath of oral arguments in March, when Obamacare seemed headed for certain defeat.

Joel B. Pollak - As National Review's Ed Whelan, the Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein, and others are pointing out, the dissent refers to another opinion as "the dissent" and uses the pronoun "we," as if speaking for the Court, as majority opinions typically do. In addition, the dissent focuses on the government's arguments, rather than tackling the majority head-on. That suggests that a switch--most likely by the Chief Justice himself--may have come very late in the game, too late to offer more than the most cursory revisions of the opinions in the case.
The fact that the Chief Justice's reasoning is so flimsy is yet another piece of evidence that he may have made a late switch--and under pressure. Congress did not intend the individual mandate to be a tax--neither in the text of the legislation, nor in its public deliberations inside and outside the Capitol. (If it had chosen to go that route, the left might have put forward a far stronger argument for universal government-run health care.) It is correct that Chief Justice Roberts has tended to defer to Congress, as conservatives do--but while this opinion has the form of deference, in substance it is the opposite of deferential, rewriting Obamacare by judicial fiat.
One final point is worth noting: that President Obama was enthusiastically joined in his attacks on the Court by the mainstream media, not just after oral arguments but right up to the eve of the decision. Roger Simon of Politico penned one of the most notorious attacks, but he was not alone--and if Anthony Weiner had not removed himself from the scene, we would have seen Democrats carry out their strategy of trashing the Court as a "corporate dominated arm of the Republican party." The truth may, in fact be that the Court is dominated easily--not by corporate interests, but by Obama's imperial presidency and an intolerant mainstream media.
If Chief Justice Roberts thought he was preserving public trust in the Supreme Court today, he will quickly learn he has done the opposite--not least because Democrats define bipartisanship as complete capitulation. Liberals--still smarting over Bush v. Gore--and conservatives now both have reason to distrust the court and its motives. If that "bipartisanship" is the legacy of the Chief Justice's apparent switch, it is a bitter bequest.

Rasmussen Poll: Romney 48, Obama 43

Daniel Doherty - I know it’s only June, but still…

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Mitt Romney attracting 48% of the vote, while President Obama earns 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. The president picks up support from just 35% of white voters overall. That’s eight points below the 43% of the white vote he won in 2008. The gender gap is now at 11 points. That’s little changed from the 12-point gap in 2008. Romney leads by 11 among men, and the candidates are even among women.

This is good news all around. President Obama is losing support among white voters, Mitt Romney leads by double digits among men and, most important, they split the women’s vote. What else could we ask for? Best of all, the survey suggests that the phony “war on women” meme invented by Democrats has failed to significantly hurt Romney (despite their best efforts). Sure, Leftists will continue to argue Rasmussen polls are deeply skewed (and overtly partisan!) even though they accurately predicted the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. Go figure. And, yes, while Gallup’s latest survey does show the two candidates locked in a dead heat -- 46 to 46 -- the Rasmussen graph below should still brighten your weekend.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Forward!

Gay Activist: Disrespect Pres.Reagan Picture At White House

Last Friday, an attaché of important gay people from Philadelphia made a trip to Washington D.C. as invited guests of President Barack Obama for the White House’s first-ever gay pride reception. There, they danced to the sounds of a Marine Corps band; they dined on crab cakes and canapés; they hand-delivered letters from concerned citizens like this 18-year old who has had four people close to him gunned down, and noted rhyming raconteur CA Conrad; and some of them took advantage of photo opportunities to give the late President Ronald Reagan the middle finger.
Photo Credit: Phillymag.com

“It’s not a gesture that I would use in the White House when representing our city and our community,” opines Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal (center), who opted for a sarcastic thumbs-up pose in front of the portrait of George W. Bush over the more vulgar one demonstrated by his Reagan-loathing peers, Matthew “Matty” Hart (left), the national director of public engagement at Solutions for Progress, and self-taught photographer turned toast-of-the-town Zoe Strauss (right).

“I have friends who work in that building,” Segal explains. “I’m not going to do something that could embarrass them or that could somehow damage a campaign that is so important. ‘Be on your best behavior,’ my staff told me.’ I think they know me too well.”
This wasn’t Segal’s first trip to the White House, having twice visited during Bill Clinton’s gay-friendly tenure. “One of the things on my bucket list was to dance with my boyfriend at the White House,” remarks Segal.”And this is the second time I got to do it. We come up to the main foyer, and what do they play? Barbra Streisand. ‘The Way We Were.’ And I thought, Are they going to play nothing but Barbra, Bette and Lady Gaga? I was waiting for ‘Over the Rainbow.’ I mean, this is the Marine band!” Clearly, Segal, a dedicated activist but also an astute political hobnobber, wants to be invited back.
But his counterparts couldn’t seem to care less. Hart posted his photo on Facebook with the caption, “Fuck Reagan.” Strauss simply posted hers without commentary. After all, the murderous facial expression and double-barreled bird-flipping seem to speak for themselves. Comments ranged from “you forgot to add with a chainsaw” on Hart’s “Fuck Reagan” note, to my personal favorite, “star wars … up yours,” on Strauss’s. ...
“Yeah, fuck Reagan,” reiterates Hart one week after the reception. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the WhiteHouse as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care.”

Obama Asserts Executive Priviledege Over "Fast And Furious" Over Documents That Obama Has Never Seen

Justice Department officials on Wednesday said President Obama has asserted executive privilege over documents sought by a House committee in an investigation of the botched “Fast and Furious” operation.
The last-minute move came just prior to the start of a scheduled hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a contempt on Congress citation against Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has refused since October to honor a committee subpoena seeking the documents.
In a letter to Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, a Justice Department official said the privilege applies to documents that explain how the department learned there were problems with the investigation, which allowed more than 2,000 weapons to be “walked” to drug smugglers in Mexico.
A contempt vote against Mr. Holder became likely after he and Mr. Issa failed to reach an agreement over turning over the documents during a 20-minute meeting Tuesday on Capitol Hill. Mr. Holder did not turn over any records at the Tuesday meeting and later told reporters he would not turn over Fast and Furious documents unless Mr. Issa agreed to another meeting, where he said he would explain what is in the materials.
He said he wanted an assurance from Mr. Issa that the transfer of the records would satisfy the committee’s subpoena.

Enlarge Photo

“It’s not about Eric Holder. It’s about the Department of Justice and ... more >

“I had hoped that after this evening’s meeting I would be able to tell you that the department had delivered documents that would justify the postponement of tomorrow’s vote on contempt,” Mr. Issa said. “The department told the committee on Thursday that it had documents it could produce that would answer our questions.”
“The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee who first began the Fast and Furious investigation.
“How can the president assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the president exert executive privilege over documents he’s supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances,” he said.
“The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it’s never repeated again.”
Mr. Grassley’s inquiry into Fast and Furious began with allegations by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents who said the government had allowed the transfer of illegally purchased weapons that were found at the scene of the killing of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian A.Terry. The agent died during a Dec. 15, 2010, shootout with Mexican bandits just north of the border, south of Tucson.
He said the Justice Department denied the allegations for 10 months before being forced to withdraw its denial in face of evidence to the contrary.

It's Official: The President Is Now A Dictatorship In America

Kurt Nimmo - Obama’s latest outrageous violation of the laws of the United States demonstrate that the nation has arrived at its destination: a dictatorship lorded over by an imperial ruler.
On Friday, Obama instructed the government to ignore an influx of illegal aliens streaming over the border. The move was implemented to sway Latino voters into the Obama camp in preparation for the upcoming election against fellow establishment candidate Mitt Romney.
Obama’s violations of law and the Constitution make his predecessor look like a piker by way of comparison. Since he was voted into office by deluded citizens who believed he would pay for their rent and food, Obama has enacted by fiat or worked with Congress to pass a number of bills that have increased the power of the executive and the unconstitutional authority of the federal government.
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
This monstrous statute allows the government to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. The NDAA gives the government the authority to designate American citizens as terrorists and indefinitely detain them without recourse to courts or due process of law and without specific charge.
“Permit me to state the obvious,” writes Sheldon Richman. “The government shouldn’t be allowed to imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial. It shouldn’t be necessary to say this nearly 800 years after Magna Carta was signed and over 200 years after the Fifth Amendment was ratified.”
Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta states that “[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” The concept of due process first appeared in English common law in 1354 and inspired the Fifth Amendment more than 400 years later.
The time honored principle that the state must try citizens in a court of law is now dead – and with surprisingly little resistance from our supposed representatives.
Unconstitutional wars
Not only did Obama continue and amplify Bush’s unconstitutional, illegal and immoral wars against nations that did not present a danger to the United States, he also initiated an overt war of his own in Libya (under NATO cover). He did not go to Congress and seek a declaration as required under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Instead, he used the fig leaf of the United Nations to cover his illegal action.
In May, the Secretary of War, Leon Panetta, said Obama will “seek international permission” to launch new wars.” He declared the “commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country” without consulting the American people.
In March, Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, introduced H. Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, the Senate Concurring, to prevent Obama from starting another war without authorization from Congress. It has since languished in committee.
Obamacare
Obama’s health care mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance from large monopolistic corporations represents the height of his arrogance and contempt for the American people and the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution is known as the Commerce Clause. It states that “Congress shall have the power… to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian tribes.” It does not permit the government to force you to buy insurance from a government preferred and protected monopoly.
In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote that the clause spells out that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined,” while those left to the states “are numerous and indefinite,” although you wouldn’t know that if you listen to Democrats and far too many of their Republican colleagues.
The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to facilitate commerce between the states and prevent tariffs, quotas and taxes. It was not designed to help a lumbering and dictatorial federal government force “mandates” on the people at gunpoint.
Our supposed representatives are wholly ignorant of the Constitution and its unmistakable principles of limited government intervention. Rep. Nancy Pelosi made this clear when she was asked if the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate.
“Are you serious?” she responded, demonstrating her complete ignorance of the Constitution.
Following legal challenges to the law and its consideration before the highest court, Obama threatened to cut off Medicare payments if the Supreme Court does not rule in his favor.
Treaties
Obama has shown his contempt for the law, Congress, and the people by negotiating globalist treaties.
He would subvert the American judicial process by implementing the International Criminal Court. It will ultimately be used against American citizens. Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame University Law School has stated that we will be confronted by “a monster” that effectively “repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.”
The Law of the Sea Treaty will create another international bureaucracy that will limit the sovereignty of the United States and impose globalist regulations. “The autonomy of the United States is threatened if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body that is not accountable to the American people,” writes Julie Borowski. “The U.N. is openly hostile to our national sovereignty and republican form of government. The ratification of LOST [Law of the Sea Treaty] would open up a Pandora’s Box of problems. It would impose global taxes and regulations that cripple economic growth while exposing ourselves to high-stakes environmental lawsuits.”
The Small Arms Treaty would circumvent the Second Amendment, the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. If ratified, it will impose even tougher licensing requirements, confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms, ban semiautomatic weapons, create an international gun registry, and override our cherished national sovereignty.
Startling details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership were revealed earlier this week in a leaked document. This treaty would allow transnational corporations to skirt American banking, investment, environmental and labor laws. The laws would still apply to corporations based in the United States, however. “The leaked document shows that in all of the major respects, this is exactly the same template that was used in NAFTA and other agreements that President Obama campaigned against,” Todd Tucker, the research director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division, told Slate.
Flurry of Executive Orders
Although he lied and said he would not issue executive orders, Obama has signed a large number of them:
Council of Governors. “An Obama executive order that creates a council of state governors who will work with the feds to expand military involvement in domestic security, together with PDD 51, a Bush era executive order that gives the President dictatorial power in times of national emergency, eliminate the last roadblocks to declaring martial law in the United States,” Paul Joseph Watson summarized in January of 2010.
National Defense Resources Preparedness: This EO, signed in March of 2012, renews and updates Obama’s authority to seize control of all civil energy supplies, including oil and natural gas, and control and restrict all civil transportation. It essentially reaffirms a large number of FEMA-related executive orders issued since the national security state was installed in 1947 and is another element in an intricate structure that will enable martial law at the president’s discretion.
Less significant – although equally unconstitutional – executive orders include creating a council on bioethics, implementing a policy on space exploration, creating a mathematics advisory panel, and numerous other issues that should be addressed by Congress.
Advanced Effort to Kill the Constitution
From the Department of Justice’s high-handed attempt to prevent Arizona from protecting its borders to restrictive EPA rules that impose unreasonably burdensome financial costs on the states, Obama’s federal government has turned into a tyrannical leviathan dictating policy and law at gunpoint.
Since the reign of Bush, the federal government has shifted into high gear the effort to degrade and dilute the separation of powers. Obama was installed precisely to oversee the further destruction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and empower the imperial presidency.
His latest move to further weaken the immigration laws of the United States is simply more evidence that the federal government will continue to run roughshod over the Constitution and the natural rights of the American people, an incremental plan implemented by the elite that is now approaching its zenith.

Obama Playing Games With The Latino Vote

Carol Platt Liebau - Deesperately flailing in his bid for re-election, the President hopes to sway votes in the Latino community (especially in states he needs like New Mexico and Colorado) by coming up with a half-baked extralegal plan that -- depending on how one looks at it -- is either nothing at all, or else constitutes a big impediment to reaching a permanent, legislative solution on how to address the illegal immigration crisis in this country.

How is the plan nothing at all?  Well, how many young people under 30 who meet all the criteria set out by the President yesterday are actually being pursued and deported?  I would wager not many.

And so now, the President is willing to give them work permits.  That might mean a little more if unemployment among young people weren't at historically high levels -- approximately 16% among those 25 and under.

Now, he's simply creating more competition in an already suffering cohort of the labor market . . . after having failed to demonstrate the leadership to spearhead a serious, meaningful immigration reform bill despite having had two years of an overwhelming Democrat majority in which he could have done so (and during a term in which he has broken repeated promises to do so; apparently, the pledge to get on it first thing next term wasn't enough! ).  Instead, he pursued massively unpopular ObamaCare.

On the other hand, how is the plan an impediment?  As this LA Times story makes clear, the President's idea came in response to pleas from Democrat senators -- who realized that Republican Marco Rubio was putting together a real legislative solution that could address the crisis.  Having him do so was a political nightmare for the Democrats, who are hoping to cement the Latino vote by handing out tokens like this one while accusing the Republicans of being anti-Latino.

Thus, rather than working with Rubio to hammer out legislation that would have addressed the problem in a serious, permanent way -- and truly benefited Latinos -- the President chose instead the path that would benefit himself and his allies politically.  It also helps to poison the water for any real and lasting reform, to the detriment of those who need it most.

(Of course, this analysis sets aside the President's unconscionable arrogation of power that he himself has acknowledged is not his to take -- a shameful and desperate move inimical to the long-term health of our republic and its separation of powers.)

Let us hope that Latinos understand that the President has done little to advance their real long-term interests -- that, in fact, he has been hoping to hoodwink them, and willing to make them pawns to further his own electoral prospects at their ultimate expense.

The contrast is striking: President Reagan believed there was no limit to what could be achieved if you don't care who gets the credit.  President Obama doesn't care if anything is achieved so long as he can claim whatever credit there is.

Rassmussen Poll: Romney Leads in Wisconsin 47/44

Earlier today, National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar warned that Mitt Romney was poised to breach the Blue Wall — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  A new Rasmussen poll of likely voters in Wisconsin corroborates Kraushaar’s analysis.  Mitt Romney has moved to a narrow lead over Barack Obama in the immediate aftermath of the recall election, 47/44:

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Romney with 47% of the vote to Obama’s 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
Prior to this survey, Obama’s support in the state has ranged from 45% to 52%, while Romney has earned 41% to 45%. Last month, the numbers were Obama 49%, Romney 45%. The president led his likely Republican challenger by 11 points in March - 52% to 41%.
Just last week Republican Governor Scott Walker won a special recall election prompted by Democrats outraged over his successful move to limit collective bargaining rights for some unionized public employees in order to reduce Wisconsin’s budget deficit.

Ed Morrissey - Wisconsin hasn’t gone Republican since the 1984 Ronald Reagan landslide over Walter Mondale.  It came close two of the past three cycles, however, with George Bush only losing the state by a few thousand votes in each of his two elections.  However, Obama won Wisconsin handily in 2008, 56/43, so a 3-point deficit with less than five months to go sends a big red flag flying, perhaps over the entire Midwest and Rust Belt.
Obama is hampered in Wisconsin by a 47/52 approval rating — slightly worse than the national numbers we see from Gallup, but not extraordinarily worse.  Men have a much stronger disapproval at 37/59, while women give him a narrower positive rating at 53/46 — but 39% strongly disapprove, as do 50% of men.  Independents disapprove by a significant margin at 41/56.
These numbers get reflected in the head-to-head matchups as well.  Romney has a 15-point lead among men, while Obama has an eight-point lead with women, giving Romney the edge in the gender gap. Independents give Romney a 5-point edge at 43/38, but 38% is a very low number for an incumbent President in a heretofore friendly state.
That’s not the only demographic problem Obama has.  He only carries the under-40 vote by just four points, 44/40, while Romney gets 51% of the other two age demographics in Wisconsin.  Romney leads by 16 points among voters with children still at home, 49/33, and only trails by four (45/49) among those who don’t.  Obama only leads in two of six income categories — under $20K (65/33), and $40K-60K (49/41).  The $20K-40K demo is a virtual tie, with Romney taking a one-point edge (45/44), and Romney wins all the other income demos by double digits.  In fact, Obama can’t get to 40% in any of the remaining income brackets.
Some might wonder whether Rasmussen oversampled Republicans to get this result.  The D/R/I on this poll is 34/32/34, while the turnout in last week’s recall election was 34/35/31.  If anything, the poll slightly undersamples Republicans, although this turnout model is a reasonable one to use for the November election.
Looks like the Wisconsin recall is turning out to be a huge backfire on the unions, Democrats, and Barack Obama.  It may also hint at a Blue Wall collapse in five months.

Televangelist Creflo Dollar Arrested For Alleged Choking His Daughter: Good Job Creflo

Posted: June 9, 2012

Megachurch Pastor Creflo Dollar has officially released a statement following his arrest after authorities say he mildly injured his 15 year-old daughter during a disagreement at their Atlanta metro home.
Dollar, known for his extravagant way of living and presentation of prosperity in religion, was arrested by Fayette County deputies that were called to his home by his 15 year-old daughter shortly after 1 a.m according to investigator Brent Rowan.
Arguing over whether or not his daughter could attend a party, Rowan says that Dollar “got physical” with the 15 year-old leaving her with ”superficial injuries.”
Facing misdemeanor charges of battery and cruelty to children, Dollar bailed out of jail the follow morning and released this statement through his lawyer Nikki Bonner:
“As a father I love my children and I always have their best interest at heart at all times, and I would never use my hand to ever cause bodily harm to my children. The facts in this case will be handled privately to further protect my children. My family thanks you for your prayers and continued support.”
It is reported that Creflo Dollar will resume his preaching duties on Sunday morning at World Changers Church International where he serves as the pastor to a community of over 30,000 members.
The website for World Changers Church International proclaims that Dollar began his ministry in 1986 where he held his first service in a local school cafeteria with only eight people in attendance.
The church has since grown exponentially with a 6,000 member New York location, as well as various other “satellite locations” located in Los Angeles, Indianapolis, Washington, Cleveland, Dallas and Houston

Mayor Corey Booker Is A Outcast To Barack Obama

John Hayward - It looks like all his furious backpedaling, and the embarrassing “hostage video” he filmed, were to no avail: an
Obama Administration source tells the New York Post that Newark mayor Cory Booker is “dead to us.”
Booker, a rising young star in the Democrat Party, apparently once harbored hopes of securing a post in the prospective second Obama Administration, specifically housing secretary.  But then he had to go and defend capitalism on Meet the Press, and pronounce himself “nauseated” by Obama’s anti-capitalist campaign rhetoric.
The sources who spoke to the Post don’t say if Booker’s choice of such unpleasant terminology is what killed his relationship with them.  They leave the impression that even the most reasoned and careful defense of capitalism, from a popular mayor of great personal character, who took great pains to declare his general support for Obama’s re-election, was utterly intolerable.  Aren’t these the people who talk about “tolerance” all the time?
Booker made an embarrassingly over-eager attempt to walk back his Meet the Press comments via Web video, but even that wasn’t good enough for the Obama extremists.  In fact, according to the Post, it’s one of the things that sealed his doom with Team Obama:

Almost immediately, top Obama aides were speed-dialing Booker, insisting he backpedal from his comments before returning to the Garden State. But the mayor wouldn’t do that.
Booker further enraged them by waiting until that night to post an online video that was neither cleared by the campaign nor acceptable to Obama strategists.
And then Booker did it again. The next night, he went on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show to talk about his earlier comments without discussing it with the campaign or working out a cohesive message with Obama’s team. During that appearance, Booker threw even more fuel on the fire when he made it look as if he had been ordered to retract his comments because he decided to “clarify” them after “he did talk with campaign officials.”

These guys are worried about something Booker said on Rachel Maddow?  Who the hell saw it?  Talk about being out-of-touch!  But that is part of what’s going on here: the extremist lunatics who watch MSNBC are the only constituency Obama cares about any more.  Small business owners, working Middle American families, investors who aren’t already part of Obama’s crony network… those people can go to Hell, where Cory Booker can spend eternity rescuing them from burning buildings.
Publicly, the Obama campaign has taken pains to say it has patched up its differences with Booker, but insiders tell a different story:

“Cory and Barack Obama have never been besties, but that was the final nail. It’s like, ‘You’re dead and done.’ The firing squad is out,” said a Democratic source in contact with both sides. “It’s not just that he messed up, it was that he compounded it and didn’t have their back when they gave him a national stage to talk.”
[…] “What he did was undermine a leading argument for the campaign. It was a serious distraction. Not a minor screw-up; a major screw-up,” a Democratic source said. “He is trying to figure out how to work his way back in the fold.”

It remains extremely disturbing that anti-capitalism and scurrilous, dimwitted attacks on Mitt Romney’s successful private-sector career – which have, thus far, actually turned out to be attacks on the big Obama donor who was actually responsible for everything the Obama campaign wants to pin on Romney – comprise the “leading argument for the campaign.”
They haven’t got anything else, so they can’t afford to let people like Cory Booker and the rest of the insurgency following in his footsteps – including prominent Democrats like former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, former Tennessee representative Harold Ford Jr., current Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, and now former President Bill Clinton – dilute their toxic rhetoric with common sense.
Clinton, like Booker, only made things worse when he tried to walk his criticism of Obama back on CNN.   ““I’m very sorry about what happened.  I thought something had to be done on the ‘fiscal cliff’ before the election,” Clinton explained.  “Apparently nothing has to be done until the first of the year.”
Good Lord.  That’s just what Americans recoiling from Barack Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility, managerial incompetence, and hostility toward the private sector wanted to hear right now.  Don’t worry about that rapidly approaching cliff, folks!  Plenty of time to pump the brakes!  What Clinton and Booker said in the first place makes more sense to most of us, as we survey the long years of horrid economic news: Obama already went much too far.

CBS Poll: 52% Of Americans Support The New Arizona Immigration Law

(Credit: CBS)

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

---

Updated: June 8, 9:10 am ET
(CBS News) As the Supreme Court weighs a decision on Arizona's controversial immigration law this summer, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that more than half of Americans see the law as "about right."
The legislation, which was signed into law in April 2010, is considered among the most stringent immigration laws in the nation. It requires Arizona law enforcement members to check the citizenship status of anyone they believe appears to be an undocumented immigrant -- and has incited much controversy about whether or not it effectively legalizes racial profiling in a state with a heavy Latino population.
According to the survey, conducted from May 31-June 3 among 976 adults nationwide, 52 percent of Americans believe Arizona's immigration policy is about right, while 33 percent say it goes too far. Eleven percent say the law does not go far enough.
The U.S. Department of Justice is challenging the law on the grounds that it conflicts with what it contends is the federal government's exclusive right to set immigration laws for the country.
Most Americans seem to disagree. Sixty-two percent of respondents - and majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents - say both the federal government and state governments should be able to determine laws regarding undocumented immigrants. Twenty-five percent (30 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of Republicans) think such laws should be determined exclusively by the federal government, and 11 percent (4 percent of Democrats and 15 percent of Republicans) think they should be determined by state governments only.
As to what Americans think should happen to undocumented immigrants who are currently working in the U.S., 43 percent think they should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship, 21 percent think they should be allowed only as guest workers, and 32 percent think they should required to leave the country. These percentages have been generally consistent for the past three years.
President Obama has criticized the Arizona legislation as a "misguided" law that "threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. "  The tensions between his position on the issue and that of Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer were highlighted earlier this year when the two engaged in a seemingly heated exchange when Mr. Obama arrived in Phoenix for a visit.

Polls: Romeny Leads Obama In Florida And Ohio

AllahPundit - Remember, Team O dropped a cool $25 million in ad spending last month. Their dividend thus far has been … a series of tightening polls, capped by today’s Gallup tracker showing Romney ahead by two nationally. Dude, is this happening?
First, the Colorado news from Rasmussen:

President Obama and Mitt Romney are neck-and-neck in Rasmussen Reports’ first look at the presidential race in Colorado.
A new statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows both the president and his likely Republican challenger receiving 45% support in the Centennial State. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Now the obligatory caveat: In the other major poll released today, a multistate survey of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado from Purple Insights, The One leads Romney by two in Colorado. Given the margin of error, though, that result is statistically indistinguishable from Rasmussen’s result. In fact, open up the PDF and scroll down to page 10 and you’ll see that all four states are effectively dead heats, although for the moment Mitt leads in Ohio and Florida and Obama in Virginia and Colorado. The bad news? O actually does ever so slightly better in those last two states than he did in April even though Romney’s favorable ratings have improved. The good news? Romney wins independents in both states as well as in Florida. The only state where he loses them is, oddly enough, in Ohio, where he enjoys a three-point lead overall. I’m suspicious of that result, actually, because of the unusual partisan breakdown: In the other three states, Romney is running at around 85/12 over Obama among Republicans, but in Ohio he’s at a mind-blowing 91/3. I know the base is going to line up behind him, but they ain’t lining up that tightly.
The response when people were asked which candidate knows what it takes to create jobs is interesting. Obama’s on the top line, Romney’s on the second, and “not sure” is on the third. From left to right, you’re looking at results from Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida, respectively. No surprise that Romney’s winning this category, but it is a bit surprising that he’s only winning it this narrowly:

The poll was conducted from May 31 to June 5; the miserable May jobs report came out on June 1, so O’s numbers may be slightly inflated here due to the results obtained before the report was announced.
This data set is interesting too, as it touches on views of Romney’s Bain career. Top line is people who think private equity helps the economy, second line is people who think it hurts, third line is “not sure.” Again, from left to right, it’s CO, VA, OH, and FL:

Terrible numbers in Ohio and Florida — the two states where Romney leads. Proof that the Bain messaging isn’t moving the needle, or circumstantial evidence that the Bain messaging might be working to keep Obama in the game?
One more data set for you on jobs, which might help explain why Obama and Romney are neck and neck on who’ll do better to create them. This comes from Gallup. Never forget, my friends: There are an awful lot of low-information voters out there.

Column three is the killer, of course. Overall, a plurality actually rates last Friday’s jobs-report stinkbomb as having been “mixed,” “somewhat positive,” or “very positive”(!) (40 percent, seven percent, and two percent, respectively). Just 42 percent say it was either somewhat or very negative. I don’t know how to explain that except to speculate that a huge chunk of voters simply have no idea of what constitutes healthy job growth. They hear that 60,000 jobs have been created and they think “hey, great” without paying close enough attention to know that that’s far below what we need to bring down unemployment. I think that’ll change later this year as people start focusing more on political news in anticipation of election day, but who knows? Maybe The One will surf to victory on a wave of idiots who think 50,000 jobs a month is pretty goshdarned impressive.
Exit quotation from Fox News’s new poll: “More than half of voters think the administration has mostly failed at creating new jobs (56 percent), stimulating the economy (54 percent) and improving health care (52 percent).”

Unlike Obama, Scott Walker Delivered

Unlike Obama, Scott Walker delivers By: Sen. Ron Johnson May 31, 2012 09:39 PM EDT

Starting Wednesday, most of the folks I know in Wisconsin will be looking forward to a well-earned respite from what seems like a permanent campaign. Instead of taking a break from politics between elections, Wisconsin has for months been dealing with fugitive legislators, ugly protests, legal challenges and a series of recall contests allegedly aimed at overturning Gov. Scott Walker’s legislative agenda. There’s virtually no possibility that his successful reforms will be overturned, so one has to wonder: What exactly is the point of Tuesday’s recall vote? The simple facts are the governor’s reforms have worked, and Wisconsin is open for business. Since Walker and his allies in the Wisconsin state Legislature passed reforms that asked public-sector employees to contribute a small amount to their retirement and health care plans, prevented unions from automatically collecting dues from workers’ paychecks and granted local governments more flexibility in dealing with public-sector unions, property taxes have actually gone down. Counties and municipalities have balanced their budgets. And the state has gone from a budget deficit of $1.8 billion to a surplus of $275 million. These reforms have worked, and the people of Wisconsin recognize there’s no reason to return to the deficits of the past. When Republicans took control of Madison in 2011, the Legislature was dealing with a gaping budget deficit. While most elected officials prefer to decide whether to boost spending or cut taxes, this team was different. The serious-minded legislators elected in 2010 recognized that business as usual was ruining the state. Wisconsin’s business climate was worsening. Jobs were leaving. Budget deficits were growing. The leaders stepped up and adopted reforms they knew might not be popular at first, but would — over time — put the state on sound fiscal footing. Facing serious fiscal challenges, they made the hard decisions and took the tough votes. So far, it looks like they were right. We could use some of that fortitude in Washington. At the federal level, the problem is nearly 1,000 times worse than it was in Wisconsin — with Washington running annual deficits of well over $1 trillion every year since President Barack Obama was elected in 2008. Given the size of the problem and the consequences if we fail to act, the last signal the people of Wisconsin should send to our nation is that elected officials who make tough decisions will be booted out of office. Instead, we should encourage elected officials — in Washington and elsewhere — to take practical steps to control spending and rising deficits. That has not been the case in Washington, where the president has simply refused to lead. He has presented four federal budgets. None of them included reforms to save Social Security and Medicare. None included a plan to get this nation to a balanced budget. Instead, the Obama administration is content to prevail over historic levels of spending, deficits and debt. The president’s most recent budget was so unserious, it was defeated in the Senate, 99-0, after being rejected in the House, 414-0. This isn’t leadership; it’s a complete abdication of responsibility. Compare the president’s performance with the governor’s. Both benefited from voters who were deeply frustrated and disappointed with their predecessors and badly wanted a change in direction. Both were elected along with partisan majorities in control of both houses in their capitals — Walker in Madison and Obama in Washington. But as both prepare to face the voters again, Walker has assumed responsibility for what happened on his watch, while Obama is doing everything he can to avoid responsibility. Walker campaigned on a promise to control spending and encourage private-sector job creation. He’s governed as he campaigned — delivering the reforms he said Wisconsin needed. Contrast that with the president, who campaigned against an individual health insurance mandate, for net spending reductions, for cutting the deficit in half and for bringing the American people together. Instead of taking credit for promises kept, he’s now focused on shifting blame — to Republicans in Congress, to natural disasters, to the Arab Spring. Is that what the American people expect in a leader? What are the implications of Tuesday’s election in Wisconsin? It will tell us whether moderate and independents are willing to stick with an elected official who governed as he promised — even when it meant making tough calls on spending. It will tell us whether voters in a middle-of-the-road state such as Wisconsin recognize the importance of a little belt-tightening now, instead of much greater shocks down the road. Elected officials in Washington and elsewhere will be paying close attention to what the voters of Wisconsin have to say. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a businessman from Oshkosh, is a freshman who serves on the Appropriations, Budget, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees and on the Special Committee on Aging.

Obama War On Women: 766,000 More Women Unemployed Than When Obama Took office

(CNSNews.com) - The number of American women who are unemployed was 766,000 individuals greater in May 2012 than in January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In January 2009, there were approximately 5,005,000 unemployed women in the United States, according to BLS. In May 2012, there were 5,771,000.
The BLS derives its employment statistics from an overall number it calls the civilian non-institutional population. This includes all Americans 16 or over who are not on active duty in the military and who are not in an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home. From this civilian non-institutional population, BLS determines a subset it calls the civilian labor force, which includes all members of the civilian non-institutional population who are either employed or have made specific efforts to find work in the past four weeks. People who are not employed and who have not sought work in the past four weeks are considered by the BLS to have dropped out of the labor force.
Unemployed people are those who are in the labor force but do not have a job—despite having looked for one in the past four weeks. The unemployment rate is the percentage of the overall civilian labor force that does not have a job—that is, who have sought a job in the past four weeks and not found one.
In January 2009, according to BLS, the unemployment rate for American women was 7.0 percent. In May 2012, it was 7.9 percent.
When Obama took office in January 2009, the female civilian non-institutional population was 121,166,000. In May 2012, it hit 125,788,000—an increase of 4,622,000 since January 2012.
However, at the same time the female civilian non-institutional population was increasing, the percentage participating in the labor force was declining—following a long-term trend. In January 2009, 59.4 percent of women participated in the labor force, while in May 2012 it was 57.8.
May’s 57.8 percent female participation rate in the labor force was up from April’s rate of 57.6 percent—but that level (57.6 percent) was the lowest it had been since March 1993.Female participation in the labor force peaked at 60.3 percent in April 2000. The last time it was above 60 percent was March 2001, when it hit 60.2 percent.
Despite the increase in the female non-institutional population over the past three years, the actual number of women employed in the United States in May 2012 was about 83,000 lower than it was in January 2009. In January 2009, there were 66,969,000 women employed in the United States and in May 2012 there were 66,886,000.
The number of women employed in the United States peaked at 68,102,000 in April 2008, according to BLS.  The number of women employed in the United States today is 1,216,000 less than that.
BLS posts historical data on female employment going back to 1948. Since then, the female unemployment rate hit its lowest level—2.7 percent—in May 1953. At that time, however, only 34.0 percent of non-institutionalized American civilian women 16 or older participated in the labor force.