OBAMA LOSES FAST & FURIOUS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE (BRIAN TERRY)

OBAMA LOSES FAST & FURIOUS EXEC PRIVILEGE (BRIAN TERRY):

FED JUDGE REJECTS OBAMA ADMIN CLAIM TO CONCEAL GUNRUNNING PROGRAM RECORDS.

~ Federal Judge Rules Against Obama On Executive Privilege For "Fast and Furious"

A Federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Obama cannot use executive privilege to prevent Congress from viewing records on Operation Fast and Furious, a gunrunning program that let thousands of firearms cross the border into Mexico.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who was nominated by President Obama to the bench, said the administration had to release the documents that it was withholding by citing executive privilege.

The judge wrote in her decision that the relevant information already made public by the Justice Department has mitigated the impact of any further disclosures because any damage resulting from deliberations “has already been self-inflicted.”

Jackson was not questioning Obama’s executive privilege claim in itself but that it is rendered invalid by what the Justice Department has previously released.

The administration also has to hand over to Congress “attorney-client privileged material, attorney work product, private information, law enforcement sensitive material, or foreign policy sensitive material.”

The lawsuit dates back to a June 2012 vote in the House of Representatives to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for not handing over the records.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives launched Operation Fast and Furious in 2009, and it lasted until 2011.

The ATF lost thousands of firearms as a result, two of which were linked to the 2010 murder of a Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

The Obama administration can appeal the ruling, but it is unclear if it will do so.

Sources: Politico, Washington Free Beacon, Fox News, Youtube

Hillary & Bill Clinton vs Barack Obama Jr's Policies: Decision 2016 (HILLARY & CHRISTIE)

#CLINTONvsOBAMA2016

BARACK OBAMA JR vs BILL & HILLARY CLINTON IN 2016: ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

If it were already Nov 2016 and BILL CLINTON was Legally allowed to run for a 3rd term, would I still Vote for him again??

YES! Without a doubt!!

BILL CLINTON Respected & Highly Valued BLACK American Voters.

He was also Not 100% Partisan.

However since BILL CLINTON can't Legally seek a 3rd term,
come Nov 2016, would I Support HILLARY CLINTON if She campaigns for U.S. President??

Most Likely, YES!

Well what about BENGHAZI??

As I've written previously, HILLARY CLINTON did Not make the Final decisions regarding SECURITY for Ambassador CHRIS STEVENS & his 3 comrades.

Although She was the U.S. Secretary of State at that time, HILLARY did Not call the shots on that situation.

So who was RESPONSIBLE for their Deaths?

I can speculate but I know for a Fact it was Not HILLARY CLINTON!

What about BARACK OBAMA JR??

If it were already Nov 2016, and BARACK OBAMA JR was Legally allowed to run for a 3rd term, would I Vote for him a 3rd time??

The Verdict is still out on that one.

I am a BLACK American Voter.

I would have to really Evaluate how BARACK OBAMA JR has Treated BLACK Voters after the 2008 & 2012 Elections, versus other Voting Blocks.

I would also have to really Evaluate Pres OBAMA'S Economic Policies & the way he has treated America's Vets and Active Duty U.S. Military Personnel.

If you want to know whether or not I would ever Support BARACK OBAMA JR again for Political office........

Check with me later on this question.

BARACK OBAMA JR vs BILL & HILLARY CLINTON IN 2016


Source: CNN

Chicago Handgun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional, NRA Celebrates

High Court Strikes Down Chicago Handgun Ban


In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

The court grounded that right in the due process section of the 14th Amendment. The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer predicated far-reaching implications. "Incorporating the right," he wrote, "may change the law in many of the 50 states. Read in the majority's favor, the historical evidence" for the decision "is at most ambiguous."

He was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

At issue was whether the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to local gun control ordinances, or only to federal restrictions. The basic question had remained unanswered for decades, and gave the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow Americans expanded weapon ownership rights.

A key question was how far the court would apply competing parts of the 14th Amendment to preserve some "reasonable" gun control measures currently in place nationwide.

The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs. Otis McDonald told CNN outside his South Side home that he wants a handgun to protect himself and his family from the violence in his neighborhood. "That's all I want, is just a fighting chance," he said. "Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me."

His application for a handgun permit was denied in a city with perhaps the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation.

The justices two years ago affirmed an individual's right to possess such weapons, tossing out restrictive laws in the federal enclave of the District of Columbia.

The larger issue is one that has polarized judges, politicians and the public for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias and therefore subject, perhaps, to strict government regulation? And is that regulation limited to federal laws, or can it be applied to local communities?

The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Gun rights groups applauded the decision.

"Today marks a great moment in American history," said Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association. "It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending."

Some gun control advocates tried to put a positive spin on the opinion.

"There is nothing in today's decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws," said Paul Helmke, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The court majority refused to limit its 2008 District of Columbia ruling. That decision offered at least partial constitutional validation to citizens seeking the right to possess one of the most common types of firearms in their homes. The Chicago ruling now extends that right significantly.

The Justice Department estimates that as many as 275 million guns are in the United States. In 2005, three-quarters of the 10,100 homicides by firearms nationwide were committed with handguns.

Underpinning the legal basis for the court's jurisdiction in this appeal is a complex reading of the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War to ensure that all citizens -- including newly freed slaves -- were protected from state laws that might restrict their fundamental rights.

One part ensures that states cannot deprive people of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That has been commonly applied by federal courts when it comes to disputes over basic rights, so-called "ordered liberty" cases. Such cases include affirming the right to abortion, and to homosexual sex.

But another rarely used provision also prevents states from depriving the "privileges or immunities" of all citizens. The specific question for the high court in the Chicago case was whether the "immunities and privileges" clause should be used to overturn the handgun ban. An 1873 ruling limited use of that provision when considering a variety of state laws.

McDonald's lawyer, Alan Gura, promoted a new reading of the clause, in his lead role representing gun owners.

The constitutional theories are dense, but some legal scholars had said that if the high court embraced this "privileges and immunities" clause, it could open up to fresh review a huge range of issues, like property rights and gay marriage.

Courts have generally upheld other cities' restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. The conservative high court majority has in recent years upheld a California ban on assault rifles, similar to a federal ban that expired in 2004.

Forty-four state constitutions protect their residents' right to keep weapons, according to a brief filed by 32 state attorneys general in support of the individual weapons owners in the current appeals.

Some constitutional experts have noted the Bill of Rights had traditionally been applied by courts only to the federal government, not to local entities. It was not until the past half-century that the justices have viewed free speech, assembly, and the press -- among other rights -- as individual in nature, and fundamental to liberty, superseding in many cases the power of states.

There have been limits. The high court has repeatedly refused to extend to states the 5th Amendment requirement that persons can be charged with serious crimes only by "indictment of a grand jury."

The current case was McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521).


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Obama's Afghan War Strategy Quagmire...Selling New Troop Surge Idea To Dems

Is Pres. Obama's Afghan decision already a done deal?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Pres. Obama plots future of the Afghan Mission.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Pres. Barack Obama must sell base on unpopular war in Afghanistan



In his speech to the nation next Tuesday, President Barack Obama must persuade supporters who thought they’d voted for an anti-war president to back a plan expected to roughly double the number of troops in Afghanistan from when he took office.

Obama’s rise as a national political figure was fueled by his early opposition to the war in Iraq, which distinguished him from primary foes who’d initially backed the invasion and which quickly won him the support of millions who had grown weary of that conflict. While he repeatedly talked on the campaign trail about directing more resources to the fight in Afghanistan, many of his supporters took that rhetoric primarily as a critique of President George W. Bush’s military priorities.

“It was an excellent campaign line for Obama to say, ‘We took our eye off Afghanistan and fought the wrong war in Iraq,’” said Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Department South Asia specialist now affiliated with the Middle East Institute. “The implications of what he was saying I don’t think registered on people…..They didn’t see it.”

“I don’t think there was a consciousness in the electorate that, if we elect Obama, we’re sending 50,000 troops to Afghanistan,” said Kurt Volker of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “It wasn’t hidden, but it wasn’t evident to voters who were focused on other issues."

In major foreign policy speeches in August 2007 and July 2008, Obama did talk of sending “at least two” more U.S. combat brigades — made up of between three thousand and four thousand troops each — to Afghanistan. However, the 21,000 troops he has already sent far exceed any troop increase he discussed publicly before the election, even before the 30,000 or so more he’s expected to announce he’ll add to that number in Tuesday’s speech.

Volker said part of the reason Obama’s campaign talk of shifting focus and troops to Afghanistan didn’t sink in with voters was because such a mission didn’t seem terribly dangerous to the public when the upstart candidate, and many of his Democratic colleagues staked out that position during the early stages of last year’s campaign when Iraq was the war that occupied the lion’s share of media coverage and the public’s attention.

“The situation in Afghanistan now appears to be definitely worse than it was then,” said Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO who supports a troop increase. “What seemed to be a steady course, responsible and not that hard last year, now seems to be a big gulp.”

As Obama prepares to unveil his Afghan strategy to a military audience at West Point on Tuesday, it’s his most loyal political supporters who need the most convincing.

A USA Today/Gallup Poll released Wednesday showed slightly more Americans supporting an escalation of the war than supporting a decrease in troop levels. But the survey also shows support for sending more troops comes largely from Obama’s political opponents, while those who voted for him and who will be critical to reelecting Democrats in Congress next year are deeply skeptical.

The new poll found 57 percent of Democrats favor beginning a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, while just half as many, 29 percent, favored a hike in troop levels. Republicans were far more likely to back Obama’s expected call for 30,000 or so additional troops, with 72 percent backing some increase, while just 17 percent want to start pulling out.

The White House has concluded that making a troop increase more palatable to Democrats means framing it in terms liberals are more comfortable with, as just one part of a much bigger strategy involving diplomatic, multi-national and civilian aid efforts. At the same time, he has to reassure Democrats who worry that the war, now entering its ninth year, will or has become a quagmire.

“This is a complex decision. It does not just depend on what number we put in there,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” "One of the things the president has spent probably the most amount of time on [is] not just trying to figure out how many we get in but how we get our troops out.”

Gibbs added, “The president will ... underscore for the American people that this is not an open-ended conflict, that we will not be here forever, that we have to pass this on to the Afghans.”

Many analysts say that if Obama can’t get most Democrats on board with a troop increase, the consequences could be politically serious both for the Democratic Party’s 2010 electoral prospects and the president’s broader agenda.

“I think it threatens his domestic agenda pretty substantially, unless he takes the people along with him,” said Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government at the University of Texas. “That’s what a lot of other Democrats like [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi are worried about right now. ... He risks alienating large chunks of the Democratic Party.”

The danger is particularly acute for Democratic members of Congress who need a robust turnout from their core constituencies next November to stave off the losses the party in the White House usually suffers in such elections.

“War is an emotional issue,” Buchanan said. “In the midterms especially, some of those people who are conflicted may sit on their hands ... All those things make it a sticky wicket for Obama.”

Some lawmakers such as Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.) are trying to sell wary Democrats on a troop increase by coupling it with a promise to hike taxes to pay for the additional cost, which could be on the order of $30 billion a year.

In the past, Obama has promised that all supplemental war funding would be offset with budget cuts or revenue hikes. However, the White House seems to be giving a chilly reception to the idea of a broad-based tax hike to pay for additional troops.

“I have been in no meetings where there’s been a war tax discussed,” Gibbs told CNN Wednesday.

While many pundits see the Afghan situation as a likely loser politically for Obama, at least in the short term, a few see more promise than peril in the president being forced to rely on Republicans for support.

“I don’t see why that isn’t a complete win-win domestic political equation for him,” said Tom Donnelly, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. “Obama’s got an immense upside in this, if you ask me. With all the questions about whether he’s forceful or decisive enough, he’s got a real opportunity to get his mojo back. There’s nothing like victory to make a politician popular.”

Donnelly said he thinks rumblings from Democrats about blocking any escalation are essentially empty threats. “Are you trying to tell me that a Democratic Congress that couldn’t cut off funding on George Bush’s awful Iraq war is actually going to pull the plug on [Obama]?” Donnelly asked.

If the Obama surge focuses at first on limited areas in Afghanistan, such as the Kandahar region, nervous congressmen could actually be able to point to some progress on the ground before they face voters next November. “By the middle of next year, we ought to be able to see something for our effort,” Weinbaum said.

However, one analyst of public sentiment in wartime warned any progress is likely to be accompanied by an increase in American casualties.

“If [Obama’s] going to be more aggressive militarily, it means more Americans are going to die and that’s the thing that moves public opinion more than anything else,” said John Mueller, a professor of political science at Ohio State University.

Mueller noted that once Americans give up on a war, it’s difficult to get them back on board even when there’s compelling evidence of a turnaround on the ground.

“Once people are turned off on a war they tend to stay turned off,” Mueller said. “That’s what happened in Iraq. Even when it became clear that the war was decidedly going better, the numbers of people who supported it didn’t move much.”



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, MSNBC, Google Maps