House Panel Recommends Attorney General Eric Holder Contempt Citation Along Party Lines 23-17 … Full House Vote Set for next Week
Following President Barack Obama’s last second rescue of Attorney General Eric Holder and invoking Executive Privilege in the Fast and Furious scandal, the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recommended that Holder be cited for contempt of Congress. The vote was along party lines, 23 to 17. Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) went forth with the measure, saying the White House assertion of executive privilege “falls short” of any reason to delay the hearing.
Voting on strictly partisan lines, a House committee recommended Wednesday that Attorney General Eric Holder be cited for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents relating to the botched Fast and Furious weapons sting operation.
The vote ended an extraordinary daylong hearing that took place after President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege over some documents sought by the panel investigating Fast and Furious.
The committee measure now goes to the full House for consideration, expected next week, of what would be an unprecedented event — Congress holding a sitting attorney general in contempt.
Mere minutes after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s decision, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA.) announced that the full House will vote on the contempt measure next week. If this vote goes forward, it will be interesting to see what Democrats Representatives do who are in “swing” and “battleground” states.
“While we had hoped it would not come to this, unless the attorney general reevaluates his choice and supplies the promised documents, the House will vote to hold him in contempt next week,” the Republican leaders said in a statement. “If, however, Attorney General Holder produces these documents prior to the scheduled vote, we will give the Oversight Committee an opportunity to review in hopes of resolving this issue.”
Just how many US Representatives are going to appear to the voters as being for withholding documents against the family of slain border agent Brian Terry? The family of murdered Brian Terry has stated that Barack Obama has made matters worse by invoking “executive privilege”.
Terry family attorney Pat McGroder on Wednesday released the following statement from Terry’s parents Josephine Terry and Kent Terry Sr.: “Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to fully disclose the documents associated with Operation Fast and Furious and President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege serves to compound this tragedy. It denies the Terry family and the American people the truth.”
The Terrys said that their son “was killed by members of a Mexican drug cartel armed with weapons from this failed Justice Department gun trafficking investigation. For more than 18 months we have been asking our federal government for justice and accountability. The documents sought by the House Oversight Committee and associated with Operation Fast and Furious should be produced and turned over to the committee. Our son lost his life protecting this nation, and it is very disappointing that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves rather than revealing the truth behind Operation Fast and Furious.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) slipped Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) a note in study hall asking if she would be his date to the State of the Union address. However, the former House Speaker said no and stated she’s already had a date. It was true heartache for Eric Cantor being rejected by little Nancy.
The invitation from Cantor was made Monday evening through staffers for the two leaders, spokesman Brad Dayspring said.
The pairing would have been among the more high-profile for an event that has in recent days been compared to a school dance, as lawmakers scurry to find cross-party seatmates for the president’s annual address. Instead of the traditional party-line seating arrangement, dozens of members have planned to sit with lawmakers from the other party as a symbol of renewed civility.
BTW, no Weasel Zippers you are not the only one that finds the “date night” SOTU a total irritating bunch of BS. It is not important are mean anything who you symbolically sit next to an a faux image of unity … IT MATTERS WHAT ONE STANDS FOR NOT WH YOU SIT NEXT TO!!!
The saga continues as to the Barack Hussein Obama Hawaiian birth certificate …
Lately it would appear that those on the LEFT are acting more like “bithers” than actual birthers. It has been the LEFT and the MSM that has been pushing the Obama birth certificate authenticity story almost more than those that began question BO’s place of birth. Recently, even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews jumped on the “birther” band wagon and questioned why President Obama would not just release the document and put all the nonsense to an end.
Chris Matthews Asks the simple question … why doesn’t the President just release the document?
Newly elected Democrat Governor Abercrombie stated he was going to get to the bottom of the long form birth certificate and release it. However, privacy laws that shield birth certificates has prompted Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie to abandon efforts to dispel claims that President Barack Obama was born outside Hawaii.
“There is nothing more that Gov. Abercrombie can do within the law to produce a document,” said Dela Cruz. “Unfortunately, there are conspirators who will continue to question the citizenship of our president.”
Abercrombie, who was a friend of Obama’s parents and knew him as a child, launched an investigation last month into whether he can release more information about the president’s Aug. 4, 1961 birth. The governor said at the time he was bothered by people who questioned Obama’s birthplace for political reasons.
But Abercrombie’s attempt reached a dead end when Louie told him the law restricted his options.
Hawaii’s privacy laws have long barred the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who doesn’t have a tangible interest.
However, the sudden back track from Gov. Abercrombie leads many, including those on the LEFT, to wonder why. Everyone will remember that Abercrombie promised that once he was elected Governor he would prove Obama’s birth certificate existed because he would march down to the Hall of Records and demand its production from the archives. So why the back track? This is rather unbelievable as two things would have had to take place prior to Abercrombie’s promise, one, he would have to have had Obama’s approval and two, he would have known the privacy laws of the state he was about to become governor of.
I, like Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor believe that Barack Obama is a US citizen, I happen to believe there is another reason why Obama has spent so much money and gone to such vast lengths to suppress the document. I always believed that there was other embarrassing or thought otbe damaging information on the certificate like race of Obama being “caucasian”.
Here is a rather interesting ans simple explanation from HILLBUZZ.
The US House of Representatives voted 245 – 189 to repeal Obamacare. Republicans and 3 Democrats made good on a GOP campaign promise that swept them into office following the 2010 midterm elections. The repeal legislation gained more votes than did the original passage of Obamacare which only had 219 votes. Three Democrats, Boren (OK), Mike Ross (AR) and Mike McIntyre (NC) crossed party lines and voted for the repeal. The full vote can be seen HERE.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the healthcare law on the books would increase spending, raise taxes and eliminate jobs.
“Repeal means paving the way for better solutions that will lower the costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government,” Boehner said in remarks on the floor before the vote.
“Let’s stop payment on this check before it can destroy more jobs or put us into a deeper hole.”
As stated at the American Spectator, although the House vote to repeal Obamacare may not go much further as the Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will never allow this to go to a vote, even after the challenger set forth by GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Obama would certainly veto the bill, the House repeal passage has significant political ramifications.
At the same time, there were 13 Democrats who voted against the original health care bill who are still in the House, meaning that Republicans can now paint the 10 who didn’t vote for repeal as supporters of the law.
Also aptly pointed out by The Other McCain, “10 Democrats who voted ‘no’ on passage in 2009 also voted against repeal, which gives the GOP ammunition against them in the next election cycle: If you wouldn’t vote to pass it, why won’t you vote to repeal it?”
The vote for Obamacare against the will of the people caused great pain for Democrats in the 2010 elections and appears will be a political hot potato for them in 2012 as well. In the 2010 campaign cycle Democrats ran from the President on this issue. What is in store for them in 2012 to defend their vote, or lack thereof.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor Double Dog Dares Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to Hold Obamacare Repeal Vote
OH YEA, I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU …
Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor dared Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to hold a vote in the US Senate on the repeal of Obamacare. Canotor laid down the gaunlet to Reid and stated that if he was so confident that he had the voted to prevent the repeal of the government take over of health care, then put it to a vote.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor isn’t one to hold his feelings back — especially when it comes to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
On Tuesday, the Virginia Republican threw a little more fuel on the fire, suggesting Reid (D-Nev.) was afraid to actually bring up the health care repeal vote in the Senate.
“If Harry Reid is so confident that the repeal vote should die in the Senate then he should bring it up for a vote if he’s so confident he’s got the votes,” Cantor said.
Soon to be New Sheriffs in Town, GOP Reps Boehner & Cantor to Smithsonian: Pull Exhibit Featuring Ant Covered Jesus or Else
So an ant covered Jesus is what passes as art these days? Not any more as there is soon to be a new Sheriffs in town. The exhibit, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” includes video images of an ant-covered Jesus on a crucifix, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains among other so-called art images.
Republican US Reps John Boehner and Eric Cantor tell the Smithsonian to pull the exhibit featuring images of an ant covered Jesus or face the consequences. Soon to be House Speaker Boehner reminded the Smithsonian that he is soon to be Speaker and warned the federally funded institution that it will face serious questions when the Republican Congress considers the next budget.
“American families have a right to expect better from recipients of taxpayer funds in a tough economy,” Boehner’s Spokesman Kevin Smith told CNSNews.com. “While the amount of money involved may be small, it’s symbolic of the arrogance Washington routinely applies to thousands of spending decisions involving Americans’ hard-earned money at a time when one in every 10 Americans is out of work and our children’s future is being threatened by debt.
“Smithsonian officials should either acknowledge the mistake and correct it, or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January when the new majority in the House moves to end the job-killing spending spree in Washington,” Smith said.
When asked to clarify what exactly Boehner meant by calling on the Smithsonian to “correct” their mistake with the exhibit, Smith responded in an email that Boehner wanted the exhibit “cancelled.”
Cantor, meanwhile, said the exhibit should be “pulled.”
It appears that the Smithsonian has blinked. As reported at Big Hollywood, the Smithsonian has pulled the exhibit. Also reported at Fox News, a video depicting Jesus on a crucifix covered in ants will be removed from an exhibit at the museum. Intentionally sacrilegious? Oh, but it was ok to unintentionally do so? Because who would ever think that having an ant covered Jesus would ever be considered sacrilegious.
“I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious,”the statement read. “In fact, the artists’s intention was to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim. It was not the museum’s intention to offend. We are removing the video today. The museum’s statement at the exhibition’s entrance, ‘This exhibition contains mature themes,’ will remain in place.”
So these so-called artists thought they were being cutting edge and daring. However, as stated by the Jawa Report, if these artists really wanted to be daring and controversial, they’d create an ant-covered Quran exhibit. Imagine what would have happened to the artists if it were an ant covered Mohamed? However, if they ever created such art, they would have their heads cut off. It’s much easier and safer to sacrilege Jesus.