Search This Blog

Showing posts with label DOJ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DOJ. Show all posts

Saturday, January 4, 2014

Barack Obama And His DOJ's War On The Little Sisters Of The Poor

 

Catholic nuns forced to comply with contraception rule? 


 

 Barack Obama And His DOJ's War On The Little Sisters Of The Poor




Published on Sep 24, 2013

The Little Sisters of the Poor are
an international Roman Catholic Congregation of women Religious founded in 1839 by St. Jeanne Jugan. They operate homes in 31 countries, where they provide loving care for over 13,000 needy elderly persons.
 
Although the Little Sisters' homes perform a religious ministry of caring for the elderly poor, they do not fall within the government's narrow exemption for "religious employers." Accordingly, beginning on January1, the Little Sisters will face IRS fines unless they violate their religion by hiring an insurer to provide their employees with contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.


For more information, visit www.becketfund.org/littlesisters


Sometime this weekend, consider a word or donation of support by way of thanks to the Little Sisters for being so counterculturally authentic, beacons of integrity, and inspiration.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Big Government vs. the Little Sisters of the Poor


As expected, the Obama Administration today asked the Supreme Court not to exempt Catholic groups from an ObamaCare requirement to offer contraceptive coverage, after
Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave them a temporary reprieve earlier this week.


That means that Catholic doctrine notwithstanding, President Obama and his minions want to enforce coverage which includes birth control pills and abortifacients for this person:



The Administration’s court filing comes in response to an emergency stay  issued late Tuesday, December 31 by Justice Sonia Sotomayor which prevented the government from enforcing the Mandate against the LittleSisters of the Poor Home for the Aged.


The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the nuns in the case, argue that since the Catholic Church strongly opposes birth control, any requirement which requires that they
 pay for it or their insurance coverage include it is a violation of the  Sisters’ religious liberties, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.


But the Justice Department, responding this morning before the 10 a.m. deadline imposed by Justice Sotomayor, reiterated its tired argument that the group has no foundation for its case.  The
Obama Administration contends that religious groups such as Little Sisters of the Poor can simply certify that they don’t want to provide contraception coverage, leaving it to a third-party provider (the
insurance plan) to decide whether to provide coverage.  The Administration’s response claims,

“Applicants have no legal basis to challenge the self  certification requirement or to complain that it involves them in the  process of providing contraceptive coverage.” 

However, the Sisters have argued that even signing the certification form would violate their religious beliefs.


Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund, said in a statement,

“The government demands that the Little Sisters of  the Poor sign a permission slip for abortion drugs and contraceptives, or pay millions in fines.  The Sisters believe that doing that violates their faith, and that they shouldn’t be forced to divert funds from the
poor, elderly and dying people they’ve devoted their lives to serve.”

Until now, the Obama Administration has insisted that only churches are entitled to an exemption—and  that the exemption does not extend to religious institutions such as social service agencies or schools.  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in their March 2012 statement, listed three areas of concern with the Affordable Care Act: (1) the narrow definition of
“religious employers” that are exempted, (2) the “accommodation” of religious ministries excluded from that definition, and (3) the treatment of businesses run by people who seek to operate their
companies according to religious principles.


The USCCB has refused to comply.  In a fact sheet on the contraceptive mandate, the USCCB explained:
1. The mandate forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and devices as well as contraception. Though commonly called the “contraceptive mandate,” the federal mandate also forces employers to sponsor and subsidize coverage of sterilization. And by including all drugs approved by the FDA for use as contraceptives, the mandate includes drugs that can induce abortion such as “Ella” (Ulipristal), a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486. 
 
2. The mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or hospitals. These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but the Administration does not deem them “religious employers” deserving conscience protection because they do not “serve primarily persons who share the[ir] religious tenets.” The Administration denies these organizations religious freedom precisely because their religiously motivated purpose is to serve the common good of society—a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.

3. The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for and facilitate things they consider immoral. Under the mandate, the government forces religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs; forces religious employers and schools to subsidize and facilitate coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces conscientiously objecting employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.

4. The federal mandate is much more sweeping than existing state mandates. Employers can generally avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that part of their coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law. The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.  HHS’ policy of mandating surgical sterilization coverage is reflected in only one state law, Vermont. HHS also chose as its model the narrowest state-level religious exemption, drafted by the ACLU and existing in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon).

5. Many others have joined the Catholic bishops in speaking out against the mandate. Many recognize this as an assault on the broader principle of religious liberty, whether or not they agree with the Church on the underlying moral question. For example, at a February 2012 congressional hearing on this issue, testimony supporting the USCCB’s position was heard from the President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, a distinguished Orthodox rabbi, and officials and professors from several Protestant institutions of higher learning. The nation’s two  largest non-Catholic denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, has strongly criticized the contraceptive mandate, as have leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Evangelicals for Social Action, and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. An online declaration supporting the Church’s position has been signed by about 28,000 Catholic and non-Catholic women, including many health professionals, academics and businesswomen.

6. The rule that created the uproar has not changed at all, but was finalized as is. After its initial proposal of August 2011 was widely criticized across the political spectrum as an attack on religious freedom, the Administration announced its final rule of February 15, 2012 as a compromise. But in fact that rule finalizes the original proposal “without change.” So religious organizations dedicated to serving people of other faiths are still not exempt as “religious employers.”

7. The proposed “accommodation” is not a current rule, but a promise that comes due beyond the point of public accountability. On February 15, besides finalizing its mandate without change, HHS also announced it will develop more regulations to apply that mandate differently to “non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations”—the charities, schools, and hospitals that were left out of the “religious employer” exemption. The regulations for this “accommodation” will be developed during a one-year delay in enforcement, their impact not felt until after the November election.

8. In its March 21 Advance Notice, HHS makes it clear that even the “accommodation” will do nothing to help objecting insurers, objecting employers that are not “religious” as defined by HHS, or individuals. In its August 2011 comments, and many times since, the Catholic bishops’ conference identified all the stakeholders in the process whose religious freedom is threatened—all employers, insurers, and individuals, not only those who meet the government’s definition of religious employers.  It is now clear that all insurers, including self insurers, must provide the coverage; and almost all individuals who pay premiums (whether enrolled in an individual plan or an employer plan) have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. Only organizations identified as “religious” (to be defined by later regulation) may qualify for the “accommodation.”

9. Even religious charities, schools, and hospitals that do qualify for the “accommodation” will still be forced to violate their beliefs. The mandate will still be applied with full force to all employees of these “second-class-citizen” religious institutions, and to the employees’ dependents such as teenage children. While the Administration says employees will not pay an additional charge for this coverage, ultimately the funds to pay for it must come from the premium dollars of the employer and employees. And when these organizations provide any health coverage to their employees, that will be the trigger for having the objectionable coverage provided “automatically” to all these employees and their dependents — even if both employer and employee object to it.


There’s more.  You can access the full fact sheet and additional information regarding the HHS Mandate at the US Bishops’ website.

Read More: SOURCE 


UPDATE:  Kathryn Jean Lopez, over at The Corner, participated today in a conference call in with the Becket Fund.  She reports on the Obama Administration’s “Shocking and Unnecessary ‘War’ on
 Nuns Who Serve the Elderly Poor”, and she invites her readers to consider making a financial gift to the Little Sisters of the Poor.  Read her excellent insights here.

 Little Sisters Of The Poor - Jeanne Jugan








Sunday, December 15, 2013

Fast And Furious And The Death Of Brian Terry...3 Years And Still No Justice, Just Cover-Up From Obama Administration


OFFICIAL BRIAN TERRY FOUNDATION WEBSITE: http://honorbrianterry.com/

Brian Terry's Family Still Searching for Answers 3 Years After His Death 

The family of slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is still searching for answers three years after his death. Terry was killed with weapons used in the botched gun-running program, Operation Fast and Furious. 

His murder led to ATF official John Dodson blowing the whistle on the government-approved operation that allowed thousands of guns into Mexico, resulting in the death of countless of innocent victims. 

The Terry family is appealing a ruling that they cannot sue the federal government over the program. His cousin, Robert Heyer said, “We know who in ATF and the U.S. attorney’s office were found negligent in putting this operation into place that resulted in the death of Brian Terry, but we still don’t know why.” 

Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to release documents on the operation. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said, “We still don’t know why we were lied to by the Department of Justice and why for 10 months they continued to push a false story about not letting guns walk.” 

The House has sued to obtain documents that they believe may show false statements and a cover-up to Congress. 

Heyer said, “We’ll go to bed with another prayer that no other American law enforcement officer will lose his life like Brian did because of the guns of Operation Fast and Furious.”

Source: Fox News Insider

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brian Terry: Semper Fidelis & Honor First


Uploaded on Aug 1, 2011
The Brian A. Terry Memorial Act - HR 2668 - will honor the service and sacrifice of fallen Border Patrol Agent Terry, who died protecting Americans and securing the border on December 15, 2010. Semper Fidelis & Honor First.


The Border Patrol station in Bisbee, Ariz., will be renamed to honor the memory of agent Brian Terry who died December 15, 2010 after being shot in the line of duty. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, introduced the bill in the House of Representatives July 27.

Our nation's Border Patrol agents have a distinguished history of working to protect our borders. Agent Terry, who served our nation through his military service and his career with the Border Patrol, gave his life defending this country. Naming the Bisbee station in his honor recognizes his sacrifice, service and heroism," Issa said.

"In the past half-century, 70 U.S. Border Patrol agents -- including Agent Terry -- have been killed while protecting our nation," said Pia Carusone, chief of staff for Rep. Giffords (D-Ariz.), whose office worked with Issa on the legislation. "Congresswoman Giffords has led the fight for increased border security so Agent Terry and others will not have died in vain."

Terry's family issued a statement, saying, "From the very start, Brian loved his job as a Border Patrol agent and loved his fellow agents. The new Naco Station named in Brian's honor will serve as a lasting memory for all those who knew Brian."

In December 2010, Agent Terry was shot and killed while on patrol 14 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border near Rio Rico, Ariz., during an armed confrontation with suspected criminals. Prior to joining the U.S. Border Patrol, Agent Terry served in the U.S. Marine Corps and served as a police officer in Michigan.

Agent Terry's murder is linked to Operation Fast and Furious, a reckless program where federal law enforcement agencies knowingly allowed the trafficking of illegally purchased weapons into Mexico, arming drug cartels. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee is conducting an ongoing investigation to determine which U.S. officials are responsible for creating and authorizing the deadly program.

The bill, H.R. 2668, the "Brian A. Terry Memorial Act," has 52 Democratic and Republican cosponsors including principal cosponsor Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The station, located at 2136 S. Naco Highway, is located in the district of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and is only the second border patrol station to be named for a fallen agent. The Border Patrol's Murrieta, Calif., station is named in honor of Agents Theodore L. Newton, Jr. and George F. Azrak, two agents killed on duty in 1967, by an earlier act authored by Rep. Issa.

* "One Warrior's Creed" authored originally by Lt. Col. Steven Watt, US Army
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ATF Whistleblower On The Fast And Furious Scandal

Published on Dec 13, 2013
Former ATF agent, John Dodson, was silenced by other ATF agents who didn't want his new book to be published since it recounts the details of the Fast and Furious operation.
http://www.theblaze.com/
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sharyl Attkisson Interview on 'Fast and Furious'



Uploaded on Oct 15, 2011
C-SPAN's Susan Swain interviews CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson on the 'Fast and Furious' gunwalker scandal involving US sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels. A US Border Agent was murdered with one of those guns.

CBS' Sharyl Attkisson Opens Up About Hacking To O'Reilly, Says 'I Think I Know' Who Did It



Published on Jun 17, 2013
June 17, 2013 - Full Interview - CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson sat down with Bill O'Reilly tonight to talk about her recent revelation that her work and home computers were hacked. She described to O'Reilly how she noticed her computers starting up randomly at night, and while she did not say anything directly, she did acknowledge that she has a suspicion of who did it.

Attkisson told O'Reilly that while she was concerned about hackers getting access to her personal finances, that information was not compromised. She said the stories she was working on were Fast & Furious, a "green energy debacle" story, and Benghazi. O'Reilly couldn't help but notice how all of these stories were ones that painted the Obama administration in a negative light.

Attkisson said she got technical help before going to CBS with her concerns. O'Reilly noted the next thing to do is "sue somebody," and asked Attkisson who's under suspicion. Attkission explained she has attorneys advising her not to come forth with all that information. O'Reilly remarked, "I assume you have a suspicion." Attkission admitted, "Well, I think I know."

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RELATED STORIES:
Fast And Furious News Stories
Obama Justice Dept. Rejects Fallen Agent's Family as Fast & Furious Crime Victims
Napolitano Grilled Over ‘Fast and Furious,’ Likens Hearing to Cross Examination
ATF Whistleblowers:'Fast and Furious was to pad the gun statistics in Mexico'
White House And DOJ Participated In Fast And Furious Says Author Of New Book
Rep. Jason Chaffetz On Fast And Furious, "Where are the guts in this body to stand up and demand these documents be provided to Congress?"
REP TREY GOWDY ON ERIC HOLDER CONTEMPT VOTE: "THIS IS A SAD DAY MR. SPEAKER" -POWERFUL SPEECH (VIDEO)
Another Deadly Scandal Hits The ATF/Eric Holder/Obama-"Deadly drug cartel shootout with Mexico police linked to "grenade-walking" scandal"
Brian Terry lawsuit dismissed
All American Blogger Home Donate Contact Pelosi: Justice for Brian Terry Isn’t As Important As Jobs

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

BREAKING: DOJ Extortion? - $13 Billion JP Morgan Chase Deal May Funnel Money To Obama Advocacy Groups - The Kelly File


New details in the settlement between the Justice Department and JPMorgan Chase have revealed the deal may lead to money being funneled toward a liberal advocacy group, Fox News’ Trace Gallagher reported Monday on “The Kelly File.”

The banking giant agreed to pay the DOJ a record $13 billion to settle state and federal civil lawsuits over faulty mortgage bonds last month. The settlement states that $9 billion of the funds will go toward the lawsuits and the other $4 billion will be allocated for consumer relief.

However, the deal also states that any remaining money from that $4 billion will go to NeighborWorks of America, a liberal group that provides affordable housing and helps fund community organizers.

Critics say some of the community organizers sponsored by NeighborWorks are in the same vein as ACORN, the community organizing group busted in 2010 in a voter fraud scandal.

Fox News’ senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano slammed the deal, saying the Obama administration is funneling the funds to liberal causes.

“This is an utter perversion of justice,” he said, “for the federal government to extort billions of dollars from the second-largest bank in the United States and give it away to the president’s political friends and favorite political causes.”

NeighborWorks tells Fox News they had no idea they may receive the money from the settlement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How the Obama Admin funds leftist political organizations in three easy steps…

Step 1) DOJ attains funds in housing crash financial institution shake down
Step 2) Money is laundered through government
Step 3) Money is transferred to partisan political organization that supports Obama
No need for Congress, for a budget or anything. It is like Iran Contra for socialists.
"New details in the settlement between the Justice Department and JPMorgan Chase have revealed the deal may lead to money being funneled toward a liberal advocacy group, Fox News’ Trace Gallagher reported Monday on “The Kelly File.”

The banking giant agreed to pay the DOJ a record $13 billion to settle state and federal civil lawsuits over faulty mortgage bonds last month. The settlement states that $9 billion of the funds will go toward the lawsuits and the other $4 billion will be allocated for consumer relief.

However, the deal also states that any remaining money from that $4 billion will go to NeighborWorks of America, a liberal group that provides affordable housing and helps fund community organizers.

Critics say some of the community organizers sponsored by NeighborWorks are in the same vein as ACORN, the community organizing group busted in 2010 in a voter fraud scandal."
More here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EXTORTION:
ex·tor·tion
noun:
1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest:
the extortions of usurers.
4. anything extorted
MONEY LAUNDERING:

Overview - Money Laundering

What is Money Laundering?
The term “money laundering” refers to the activities and financial transactions that are undertaken specifically to hide the true source of the money. In most cases, the money involved is earned from an illegal enterprise and the goal is to give that money the appearance of coming from a legitimate source.

Why is IRS Involved in Money Laundering Investigations?
One look at the daily news is proof that the crimes dealing with or motivated by money make up the majority of criminal activity in the nation. Tax evasion, public corruption, health care fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking are all examples of the types of crimes that revolve around money. In these cases, a financial investigation often becomes the key to a conviction. For this reason, IRS is one of the key agencies involved in money laundering investigations.

Money laundering is a very complex crime involving intricate details, often involving numerous financial transactions and financial outlets throughout the world. Criminal Investigation has the financial investigators and expertise that is critical to “follow the money trail.”

Criminal Investigation focuses on money laundering where the underlying conduct is a violation of the income tax laws or violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. According to the IRS, money laundering is the means by which criminals evade paying taxes on illegal income by concealing the source and the amount of profit. Money laundering is in effect tax evasion in progress.

When no other crimes could be pinned to Al Capone, the Internal Revenue Service obtained a conviction for tax evasion. As the astonished Capone left the courthouse he said, "This is preposterous. You can't tax illegal income!" But the fact is income from whatever source derived (legal or illegal) is taxable income.

Had the money laundering statutes been on the books in the 1930's, Capone would also have been charged with money laundering. However, since October 1986, with the passage of the Money Laundering Control Act, organized crime members and many others have been charged and convicted of both tax evasion and money laundering.

When a criminal has a large amount of illegal income, they have to do something with it in order to hide it from the IRS. They attempt to launder it to make it appear as if it was from a legitimate source, allowing them to spend it or invest it in assets without having to worry about the IRS and tax consequences.

One of the ways to launder illegal proceeds is to move the money out of the United States and then bring it back in a clean form, often disguised as loan proceeds. Another method is to channel or co-mingle the money through various business activities to give the appearance that the money was derived from a legal source.

Why a Financial Investigation?
Financial investigations are by their nature very document intensive. They involve records, such as bank account information or real estate files, which point to the movement of money. Any record that pertains to or shows the sequence of events involving money movement is important. The major goal in a financial investigation is to identify and document the movement of money during the course of a crime. The link between where the money comes from, who gets it, when it is received and where it is stored or deposited, can provide proof of criminal activity.

IRS investigations of illegal income cases involving money laundering are critical components of the nations National Money Laundering Strategy. The long hours of tracking and documenting financial leads allows an investigation to go right to the door of the money launderers and eventually to the leader of the illegal enterprise. A complete financial analysis and reconstruction of the illegal activity (i.e. a drug organization or an abusive trust scheme) will document the financial activities related to unreported income on tax returns and money laundering which is usually key to securing a conviction.

Money laundering creates an underground, untaxed economy that harms our country’s overall economic strength. It is a global threat that erodes our financial systems.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Dems Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

"A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law. [Sen. Patrick] Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge."
Sen. Patrick Leahy previously said his bill boosts Americans' e-mail privacy protections by "requiring that the government obtain a search warrant." That's no longer the case.
Sen. Patrick Leahy previously said his bill boosts Americans' e-mail privacy protections by "requiring that the government obtain a search warrant." That's no longer the case.
(Credit: U.S. Senate)


Declan McCullagh by


Proposed law scheduled for a vote next week originally increased Americans' e-mail privacy. Then law enforcement complained. Now it increases government access to e-mail and other digital files.

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.
CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Revised bill highlights

✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.

✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.

✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.

✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to "reconsider acting" on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy's original bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.

Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director David Petraeus' e-mail was perused by the FBI, "even the Department of Justice should concede that there's a need for more judicial oversight," not less.

An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussions with interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on the legislation.

Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who has followed the topic closely and said he was speaking for himself and not his corporate clients, expressed concerns about the alphabet soup of federal agencies that would be granted more power:
❝ There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the NLRB, OSHA, SEC or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations. ❞
The list of agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for the contents of electronic communications also includes the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission.

Leahy's modified bill retains some pro-privacy components, such as requiring police to secure a warrant in many cases. But the dramatic shift, especially the regulatory agency loophole and exemption for emergency account access, likely means it will be near-impossible for tech companies to support in its new form.

A bitter setback
This is a bitter setback for Internet companies and a liberal-conservative-libertarian coalition, which had hoped to convince Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to protect documents stored in the cloud. Leahy glued those changes onto an unrelated privacy-related bill supported by Netflix.

At the moment, Internet users enjoy more privacy rights if they store data on their hard drives or under their mattresses, a legal hiccup that the companies fear could slow the shift to cloud-based services unless the law is changed to be more privacy-protective.

Members of the so-called Digital Due Process coalition include Apple, Amazon.com, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, the Center for Democracy and Technology, eBay, Google, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, TechFreedom, and Twitter. (CNET was the first to report on the coalition's creation.)

Leahy, a former prosecutor, has a mixed record on privacy. He criticized the FBI's efforts to require Internet providers to build in backdoors for law enforcement access, and introduced a bill in the 1990s protecting Americans' right to use whatever encryption products they wanted.
An excerpt from Leahy's revised legislation authorizing over 22 federal agencies to obtain Americans' e-mail without a search warrant signed by a judge.
An excerpt from Leahy's revised legislation authorizing over 22 federal agencies to obtain Americans' e-mail without a search warrant signed by a judge. Click for larger image.

But he also authored the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is now looming over Web companies, as well as the reviled Protect IP Act. An article in The New Republic concluded Leahy's work on the Patriot Act "appears to have made the bill less protective of civil liberties." Leahy had introduced significant portions of the Patriot Act under the name Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act (PDF) a year earlier.

One obvious option for the Digital Due Process coalition is the simplest: if Leahy's committee proves to be an insurmountable roadblock in the Senate, try the courts instead.

Judges already have been wrestling with how to apply the Fourth Amendment to an always-on, always-connected society. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police needed a search warrant for GPS tracking of vehicles. Some courts have ruled that warrantless tracking of Americans' cell phones, another coalition concern, is unconstitutional.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies already must obtain warrants for e-mail in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, thanks to a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010.

SOURCE: CNET

Contact you Senators and Congressmen and tell them to vote NO to this legislation:

Track this Bill HERE

Friday, June 29, 2012

REP TREY GOWDY ON ERIC HOLDER CONTEMPT VOTE: "THIS IS A SAD DAY MR. SPEAKER" -POWERFUL SPEECH (VIDEO)

This was a very powerful speech by Rep Gowdy.~"Trey Gowdy consistently delivers every single time he gets the mic. And this speech is both passionate and epic as he defends once again the need for this contempt vote. Best speech of the day:


Operation Fast And Furious

HOW THEY VOTED

Bipartisan Resolution Passes 255-67, Including 17 Democrats

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a resolution holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his refusal to produce Operation Fast and Furious documents subpoenaed last October.

 The vote on H.Res. 711, making a finding of contempt, was approved by a vote of 255 to 67.

 Seventeen Democrats crossed party lines to join the majority in the finding of contempt against Attorney General Eric Holder.

The House is also scheduled to vote later today on H.Res. 706, authorizing civil action in courts to compel production of subpoenaed documents.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa issued this statement following passage:
“My message to my colleagues and others who have fought for answers: We are still fighting for the truth and accountability – for the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, for whistleblowers who have faced retaliation, and for countless victims of Operation Fast and Furious in Mexico. Unless President Obama relents to this bipartisan call for transparency and an end to the cover-up, our fight will move to the courts where we will prevail in getting the documents that the Justice Department and President Obama’s flawed assertion of executive privilege have denied the American people.”
Read More
 

Friday, May 11, 2012

Rep. Jason Chaffetz On Fast And Furious, "Where are the guts in this body to stand up and demand these documents be provided to Congress?"


May 9, 2012


Transcript of remarks:

Mr. Chaffetz: I want to quote President Obama in his first remarks as President of the United States. 


He said, quote, "Transparency in the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. I also hold myself as President to a new standard of openness. But the mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. The Freedom of Information Act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have in making our government honest and transparent, and holding it accountable, and I expect members of my administration, not simply to live up to the letter, but also the spirit of the law. The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed or because of speculative or abstract fears," end quote. 

This country should be embarrassed by what's happening in fast and furious. 

My challenge to members on both sides of the aisle is to stand up and have the integrity to say that we have a dead U.S. agent; we have a department of justice that lied to congress. Where are the guts in this body to stand up and say, "we're not going to put up with that." We're going to demand these documents be provided to the congress. We know because the inspector general within the Department of Justice has said they have 80,000 documents, they've given congress about 7,000 of those documents. 

This is the test of principle, this is the test of integrity, and when you can't stand up and take on your own party, that's a lack of guts. This congress has got to stand up for itself, and demand that these documents be released. 

I would encourage members on both sides of the aisle, at the very least, vote for this amendment. 

I can't imagine any reason why anybody would deny the passage of this amendment. We're not going to allow taxpayer dollars to be used to lie to congress, unfortunately we have been lied to. That's the reason why we have to do this amendment. It's embarrassing that you have to even get to this point, but, madam chair, Brian Terry's family expected the integrity of -- expected, the integrity of this body demands and we cannot rest until we get to the bottom of that, regardless whether it's republican or democrat. 

You can make the case that part of this started with President Bush, we don't know what's in these documents, but the separation of powers, it's imperative that we get to the bottom of this and that we hold people accountable. Not just the lowest level of people down at the A.T.F., they've been dismissed, they've been harassed, and thank goodness for those whistleblowers who stood up and did the right thing. But the senior level, the senior people in the department of justice, they have not been held accountable. 

President Obama said in these remarks that he would. March 5, he went on Univision and promised that they would. It has not happened, and if we get stonewalling on the other side of the aisle, without your support, we will do a disservice to this country, we will do a disservice to this body and we will not get to the truth, and I promise you, when that becomes a republican president, I will stand with you and demand the openness and transparency that this body deserves. I've done it; I've challenged my own party, I have the guts, I have the fortitude to do the right thing. I urge passage of this amendment. 

I appreciate Chairman Issa, Representative Gowdy, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Farenthold, there's so many people in this body. I appreciate my colleagues from South Carolina who are passionate about this issue. I encourage all members to vote in favor of this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time."
1364 views 5/11/12

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

House Cuts Holder Justice Dept Salaries for Fast & Furious Stonewalling

House Cuts Holder Justice Dept Salaries for Fast & Furious Stonewalling


You can Learn More at www.FastAndFuriousInvestigation.com

In response to more than a year of Justice Department stonewalling Congress and the American people on Operation Fast and Furious, the U.S. House of Representatives today passed by voice vote an amendment cutting Justice Department salaries until they fully answer questions on the failed gunwalking program. Oversight Committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy (SC-4) sponsored the amendment, which cuts $1,000,000 from the Justice Department's General Administration fund and is part of the FY 2013 DoJ Appropriation.


Last week, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa circulated a briefing paper and draft contempt of Congress resolution against Attorney General Eric Holder for refusing to cooperate with the investigation of deadly Operation Fast and Furious.
“Congress has been patient – indeed too patient in my judgment – with the Department of Justice and its failure to comply with the lawful request for the production of documents,” said Rep. Gowdy.
Click here for a summary of Gowdy's amendment.
view count 277   5/8/12

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Issa Announces Fast and Furious Subpoenas of Holder and the DOJ

10/9/2011 Congressman Darrell Issa appeared with Chris Wallace today to discuss where he is with the investigation into Fast and Furious.  Congressman Issa indicated that the next phase of the investigation will include subpoenas of Eric Holder and others in the DOJ.

Congressman Issa also indicated there's more they are investigating in the DOE Loan Program as well.  This is after the DOE loaned $537M to a solar energy company, Solyndra and it declared bankruptcy August 2011. Solyndra received federal help in 2009 and never turned a profit. In March 2010, PriceWaterhouseCoopers raised questions about the company's solvency. The next month, a White House Office of Management and Budget staffer worried that the Department of Energy "has one loan to monitor and they seem completely oblivious." Another said it was "terrifying" to consider that some of DOE's next projects would make Solyndra look "better."

Read More: Wall Street Journal

Friday, July 8, 2011

Project Gunrunner Timeline under Obama, Holder and Napolitano

H.R 495~Introduced 1/15/09 (4 days before Obama took office)

H.R. 495  never made it out of committee, but it looks as it was to specifically fund Gunrunner.
Instead portions of it were rolled into the stimulus package a month later. That text found in H.R.1 is:
For an additional amount for ‘State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance’, $40,000,000, for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which   $10,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Expenses’ for the ATF Project Gunrunner.
Notice that’s $40,000,000 for Southern border enforcement, $10,000,000 of which specifically for Project Gunrunner. What does $10 million pay for here? It didn’t hire any new agents that I am aware of.
So Obama didn’t know anything about this, but he signed $10,000,000 in funding for the program? 

Here's the text of the bill, hr 495 that was introduced 1/15/09- 4 days before Obama took office and it was funded by February though the stimulus:




A BILL

To authorize additional resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009’.

SEC. 2. PROJECT GUNRUNNER.

    (a) In General- The Attorney General shall dedicate and expand the resources provided for the Project Gunrunner initiative of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to identify, investigate, and prosecute individuals involved in the trafficking of firearms across the international border between the United States and Mexico.
    (b) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Attorney General shall--
      (1) assign additional agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to the area of the United States adjacent to the international border between the United States and Mexico to support the expansion of Project Gunrunner teams;
      (2) establish not fewer than 1 Project Gunrunner team in each State along the international border between the United States and Mexico; and
      (3) coordinate with the heads of other relevant Federal law enforcement agencies and State and local law enforcement agencies to address firearms trafficking in a comprehensive manner.
    (c) Additional Staff- The Attorney General may hire Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives agents for, and otherwise expend additional resources needed to adequately support, Project Gunrunner.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to carry out this section.

SEC. 3. ENHANCED INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

(a) In General- The Attorney General, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, shall--
    (1) assign agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to the United States mission in Mexico, to work with Mexican law enforcement agencies in conducting investigations relating to firearms trafficking and other criminal enterprises;
    (2) provide the equipment and technological resources necessary to support investigations and to trace firearms recovered in Mexico; and
    (3) support the training of Mexican law enforcement officers in serial number restoration techniques, canine explosive detection, and anti-trafficking tactics.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated $9,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to carry out this section.


Source: PJ Tatler




****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~***




3-24-09



Project Gun Runner (Fast and Furious) was launched under the orders of President Barack Obama with the knowledge of Attorney General Eric Holder. Deputy Attorney General David Ogden announced the Obama Administration's new and aggressive 'comprehensive plan' on March, 24, 2009. The plan was aimed at disrupting gun trafficking between the United States and Mexico.


Full C-SPAN Video Link 3-24-2009
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/MexicoBor&start=800


****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~****
Attorney General Eric Holder at the Mexico/United States Arms Trafficking Conference
CUERNAVACA, MEXICO ~ Thursday, April 2, 2009



Remarks as prepared for delivery.
First, let me express my thanks to Attorney General Medina Mora and Secretary of Government Gomez Mont for making this conference possible.


This is my first trip to another country as Attorney General.   I wanted to come to Mexico to deliver a single message: We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in this fight against the narcotics cartels.  The United States shares responsibility for this problem and we will take responsibility by joining our Mexican counterparts in every step of this fight.


And, together, we will win – thanks in large part to the courage of my Mexican colleagues here today, who are on the front lines every day, and with whom I am proud to collaborate.


The topic that has been addressed over the past two days could not be more important – the development of an arms trafficking prosecution and enforcement strategy on both sides of the border.  

I would like to thank the Mexican and U.S. experts who have worked so hard on this issue.  On our side, Secretary Napolitano and I are committed to putting the resources in place to increase our attack on arms trafficking into Mexico. 

Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels.  My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion.  DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail.

But as today’s conference has emphasized, the problem of arms trafficking will not be stopped at the border alone.  Rather, as our experts emphasized, this is a problem that must be met as part of a comprehensive attack against the cartels – an attack in depth, on both sides of the border, that focuses on the leadership and assets of the cartel.  This is the type of full-bore, prosecution-driven approach that the U.S. Department of Justice took to dismantle La Cosa Nostra – once the most powerful organized crime group operating in the United States.  


With partners like those we have here today, I am confident that together, we will defeat these narcotics cartels in exactly the same way.  I am proud to stand with you, and to join you in this fight.  Thank you again for inviting me here.


Quiero que el pueblo Mexicano sepa que mi nación está con ustedes en la lucha contra los narcotraficantes.


México y los Estados Unidos comparten mas que una frontera—compartimos cultura, sangre e intereses comunes. Somos hermanos unidos contra una batalla que ganaremos.


Tenemos que aprender de uno a otro, trabajar juntos y luchar juntos.  Si hacemos estas cosas, si nos dedicamos juntos a esta lucha, no tengo duda que tendremos éxito.
Source: DOJ


`````



Presidents Obama and Calderón (Mexico) speak to the press assembled at Los Pinos, the Mexican presidential residence, on April 16, 2009. 

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Mexico City, Mexico)
________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                          April 16, 2009
JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
AND PRESIDENT FELIPE CALDERÓN OF MEXICO
Los Pinos
Mexico City, Mexico
4:29 P.M. CDT


PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: (As translated.) Ladies and gentlemen of the press, of the media, I would like to give the warmest welcome to Mexico to President Barack Obama, and to the delegation accompanying him. This is an historic event that will inaugurate a new era, a new relationship between our two countries.

Today in the meetings that we have held we have confirmed the determination of both governments to consolidate the very, very close contacts and links that join and bring together Mexico and the United States. We have new projects in important affairs such as security, migration, competitiveness, and global affairs.

As never before we have decided that the fight against multinational organized crime must be based on cooperation, shared responsibility, and in trust, a mutual trust.

Both governments recognize that the Merida Initiative is a very good starting point in order to strengthen cooperation in security. But we want to go beyond, we want to go further in order to liberate, to free our societies from the criminal activities that affect the lives of millions of people.

We have also agreed to expedite the times so that we can have available the resources for this Merida Initiative, and we have also decided to launch other activities that are in the hands of our governments. For example, we can adopt new measures for preventing illicit flows at the border, particularly the flow of weapons and of cash. We will also be strengthening our cooperation in information and intelligence in order to more efficiently fight against money laundering.

On the other hand, we have also agreed that both governments should produce propositions -- proposals for our cooperation so that we can eventually have reform in the United States with full respect to the sovereign decisions of both congresses -- of both nations, that is. Our governments will work in this sense to make migration an orderly, respectful process of human rights, a process in which human rights will be respected.

In energy and climate change, we have agreed to work together in order to guarantee a legal framework of certainty, transparency for the future; better use of cross-border resources such as gas and energy. And I have given to President Obama concrete proposals on climate change. One of them has to do with the integration of a bilateral market of carbon emissions, which coincides a lot with proposals that he has made to the U.S. audience, and other cooperation, ways of cooperation in climate change, such as something that Mexico has proposed, called the Green Fund.

We have also said that in addition to discussing our goals for carbon emissions that are linked in the fight against climate change globally, we must also act very soon in the design of new instruments, of new tools in order to fight against climate change. That is really the central proposal of the Green Fund.

And in a gesture of recognition, of acknowledgment on this topic, we know that President Obama and his government have made considerable efforts to provide new arguments to the discussion of this topic. We would also like to thank -- to welcome the possibility that Mexico might be the seat of the 16th U.N. conference on climate change that will be taking place in 2010.

We have recognized and acknowledged, ladies and gentlemen, that Mexico and the United States do not have to compete among themselves, but rather they must be able to take advantage of the complementary nature of their economies in order to compete as partners with regard to other parts of the world. We have the chance to make our region more competitive and to have greater, more agile production.

And we will be working in three areas. First, in the strengthening of the border infrastructure, I have also given to President Obama a proposal to facilitate the economic flows between both countries to improve the quality of life of the residents in the border areas, and to foster the development of our two nations through very specific projects on infrastructure at the Mexican-U.S. border.

Secondly, we believe it is essential to increase our cooperation and customs so that we can have a more efficient trade. And thirdly, we have also proposed to improve our cooperation in regulatory matters regarding tariff or non-tariff issues that very often make difficult our trade between two countries.

We have agreed with President Obama that we seek agreements to truly improve the economic situation not only of the United States but of the entire region and the world. We have stated our cooperation to strengthen the democracy of the market and of regional security.

In relation to President Obama's recent security to lift the restrictions for people from the U.S. to travel to Cuba and to be able to send remittances, Mexico acknowledges that this is a very constructive, positive step for the hemispheric relations, particularly for the region.

And finally, my friends, ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you that I am absolutely convinced that President Obama's visit is just an initial step, the beginning of a relationship between two countries that are friends, neighbors, and must also be partners and allies.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much, President Obama, for your visit. The President Barack Obama now has the floor.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want to begin by thanking the people of Mexico for their gracious welcome. And I want to thank President Calderón for the hospitality he has shown as a host.

You know, this is my first trip to Mexico as President, and I see this visit -- as I know President Calderón does -- as an opportunity to launch a new era of cooperation and partnership between our two nations, an era built on an even firmer foundation of mutual responsibility and mutual respect and mutual interest. We had a productive and wide-ranging conversation and I think we have taken some very important steps down that path.

It's difficult to overstate the depth of the ties between our two nations or the extraordinary importance of our relationship. It's obviously a simple fact of geography that we share a border, and we've always been bound together because of that geography. But it's not just that shared border that links us together. It's not only geography, but it's also culture, it's also migration patterns that have taken place that have become so important.

Our deep economic ties mean that whenever -- whatever steps that we're going to take moving forward have to be taken together. And that's why we worked hard, hand in hand at the G20 summit. And that's what we will continue to do at the Summit of the Americas and beyond, so that we can jump start job creation, promote free and fair trade, and develop a coordinated response to this economic crisis.

We also discussed our shared interest in meeting an immigration challenge that has serious implications for both the United States and for Mexico. My country has been greatly enriched by migration from Mexico. Mexican Americans form a critical and enduring link between our nations. And I am committed to fixing our broken immigration system in a way that upholds our traditions as a nation of laws but also as a nation of immigrants. And I'm committed to working with President Calderón to promote the kind of bottom-up economic growth here in Mexico that will allow people to live out their dreams here, and as a consequence will relieve some of the pressures that we've seen along the borders.

We also discussed what our nations can do to help bring a clean energy future to both countries. This is a priority for the United States. I know it's a priority for President Calderón. And I want to commend him for the work that he's already made in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the commitment that he's made even though Mexico is not required to do so under the Kyoto Protocol. And together, we're establishing a new Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change that will focus on creating green jobs, promoting renewable energy, and enhancing energy efficiency. I look forward to strengthening our partnership in the upcoming Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate and in next year's U.N. climate negotiations, which I hope will be held here in Mexico.
Now, as essential as it is that we work together to overcome each of these common challenges, there's one particular area that requires our urgent and coordinated action, and that is the battle that's taking place with -- with respect to the drug cartels that are fueling kidnappings and sowing chaos in our communities and robbing so many of a future, both here in Mexico and in the United States.

I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet, his rank-and-file police officers and soldiers as they take on these cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.

So we have responsibilities, as well. We have to do our part. We have to crack down on drug use in our cities and towns. We have to stem the southbound flow of guns and cash. And we are absolutely committed to working in a partnership with Mexico to make sure that we are dealing with this scourge on both sides of the border.

And that's why we're ramping up the number of law enforcement personnel on our border. That's why, for the first time, we are inspecting trains leaving our country, not just those entering it. That's why our Department of Homeland Security is making up to $59 million available to defend our common border from this threat to both of our countries.

Now, as we discussed in our meeting, destroying and disrupting the cartels will require more than aggressive efforts from each of our nations. And that's why the United States is taking the following steps: We've begun to accelerate efforts to implement the Merida Initiative so we can provide Mexico with the military aircraft and inspection equipment they need when they need it.

Yesterday, I designated three cartels as Significant Foreign Narcotics Drug Traffickers under U.S. law, clearing the way for our Treasury Department, working together with Mexico to freeze their assets and subject them to sanctions.

My National Homeland Security Advisor, who is here, General Jim Jones, as well as my Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, and my top advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, John Brennan, are all meeting with their Mexican counterparts to develop new ways to cooperate and coordinate their efforts more effectively.

In addition, as President Calderón and I discussed, I am urging the Senate in the United States to ratify an inter-American treaty known as CIFTA to curb small arms trafficking that is a source of so many of the weapons used in this drug war.

Now, there are some of the common challenges that President Calderón and I discussed in our meeting and that we're going to be working on to overcome in the months and years ahead. It will not be easy, but I am confident that if we continue to act, as we have today, in a spirit of mutual responsibility and friendship, we will prevail on behalf of our common security and our common prosperity.

So I think that this is building on previous meetings that we've had. In each interaction, the bond between our governments is growing stronger. I am confident that we're going to make tremendous progress in the future. Thank you.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President, as well.

President Obama, as a candidate for your office, you said that you wanted to see the assault ban weapon -- the ban on assault weapons reinstated. Your Attorney General has spoken in favor of this. Mexican officials have also spoken in favor of it. But we haven't heard you say that since you took office. Do you plan to keep your promise? And if not, how do you explain that to the American people?
And, President Calderón -- I'm sorry, if I may -- would you like to see this ban reinstated?
And have you raised that today with President Obama? Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, we did discuss this extensively in our meetings. I have not backed off at all from my belief that the gun -- the assault weapons ban made sense. And I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we now know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence -- violence in our own country, as well.
Now, having said that, I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we've focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws, because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across a border, is illegal. That's something that we can stop.

And so our focus is to work with Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder, our entire Homeland Security team, ATF, border security, everybody who is involved in this, to coordinate with our counterparts in Mexico to significantly ramp up our enforcement of existing laws. And in fact, I've asked Eric Holder to do a complete review of how our enforcement operations are currently working and make sure that we're cutting down on the loopholes that are resulting in some of these drug trafficking problems.
The last point I would make is that there are going to be some opportunities where I think we can build some strong consensus. I'll give you one example, and that is the issue of gun tracing. The tracing of bullets and ballistics and gun information that have been used in major crimes -- that's information that we are still not giving to law enforcement, as a consequence of provisions that have been blocked in the United States Congress, and those are the areas where I think that we can make some significant progress early.

That doesn’t mean that we're steering away from the issue of the assault guns ban, but it does mean that we want to act with urgency, promptly, now. And I think we can make significant progress.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: Thank you for your question. I want to say that, in effect, on this topic -- not only on this topic, but on many of the other thorny topics of relations between the U.S. and Mexico, we have had an open, frank, trusting conversation between President Obama and myself. We have spoken of assault weapons. He is well aware of our problems.
And we have described it as it is from the moment that the prohibition on the sale of assault weapons a few years ago, we have seen an increase in the power of organized crime in Mexico. Only in my administration, in the two years and four months, we have been able to see -- or rather we have seized more than 16,000 assault weapons. And in the efforts we have made to track their origin -- and President Obama has referred to that -- we have seen that nearly 90 percent of those arms comes from the United States -- those weapons come from the United States. There are about 10,000 sales points in the U.S.-Mexico border -- only at the border.

On the other hand, I do believe that our relationship -- the new era we must build in our relationship between Mexico and the United States must be one with trust and respect. And we definitely respect the decision of the U.S. Congress and of the U.S. people in this regard, because they are very well aware of President Obama and his government's willingness to move forward on these issues.

We know that it is a politically delicate topic because Americans truly appreciate their constitutional rights, and particularly those that are part of the Second Amendment. I personally believe that as long as we are able to explain clearly what our problems in Mexico are, then we might also be able to seek a solution respecting the constitutional rights of the Americans, at the same time will prevent -- or rather avoid that organized crime becomes better armed in our country.
But we have to work on it. We have to work on it. But we fully respect the opinion of the U.S. Congress and we know that there's a great deal of sensitivity regarding this topic.
But there are many, many things that we can definitely move forward in. For example, in armament, it is not only a matter of seeing whether we can change the legislation on assault weapons -- we have already said what our position is -- but we might also be able to see whether they can apply existing legislation in Mexico and the United States on armament. For example, in Mexico it's a matter of enforcement, with the Export Control Act, for example -- this is in the United States -- I'm sorry -- prohibits the export of weapons to those countries where those weapons are prohibited.
And that is the case of Mexico. If we actually comply with the U.S. law -- or rather if everybody complies with the U.S. law that prohibits the sale of these weapons and their export to Mexico, we can move a great deal forward.
President Obama has made recent decisions in the last few weeks, and we value them and appreciate them -- for example, to reinforce the operational capability of U.S. border agencies in order to comply with this legislation and with other laws, in order to review the flows of entry not only into the United States, but also the outgoing flows, outgoing from the U.S., to make sure that there is no illicit money, in strict compliance with United States legislation. I think these are very important steps.

But there is a problem, and only as long as we build on this trust and we clearly explain to citizens of both countries how we must find a solution, we will be able to achieve one. We do so respectfully, presenting our position, knowing full well how the U.S. people feel about this and being fully respectful of the sovereign decisions that the United States might make, or that any other country might make.

One more thing -- one more thing I forgot to mention. One other thing we can do is to track the weapons that we have in Mexico. If we manage to detect weapons sold illegally in the United States in violation of this law on the control of weapons exports, or if, in the United States, they can have -- probably move forward on a good registry of armament or on the prohibition of certain massive sales of weapons, for example, to a hunter or to a common citizen -- we know that these people do not usually buy hundreds of rifles or assault weapons or grenades -- if we can move forward in those areas, I do believe that security both of the United States and Mexico will improve because those weapons are pointing against Mexican people and Mexican officials today.


But crime is not only acting in Mexico. It is also acting in the United States. Organized crime is acting in both countries. And I do hope that those weapons that are sold today in the United States and are being used in Mexico, I hope the day will never come in which they will also be used against the North American society or against U.S. officials, just like they are now being used in Mexico.

Q (As translated.) Good afternoon, Presidents. You are going to share four years of an administration, and there can be an in-depth change in this fight against organized crime in these four years. As of today, how can we establish the concrete objectives that in 2012 will allow us to say, fine, a new era began between Mexico and the United States back then?

Particularly I'm addressing this to you, President Obama. In addition to the chance that you will invest your political capital in being able to stop the flow of these weapons to Mexico, what can we hope for, what can we expect to see in terms of arresting the drug lords, the kingpins, in the U.S.? Because there are laws against corruption, but this is enabling now -- in other words, the U.S. market is now the biggest for drugs. And former President of Mexico, ex-President Fox, said that in the back they have only gotten little pats in the back from his predecessors. Can we hope for more from your administration?

And to you, President Calderón, with this new era, how can you measure the detention, the arrest of drug lords in the United States, and also putting a stop to the flow of weapons? How can you measure this?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think that we can measure this in terms of the reduction in violence; in the interdiction of drugs; in the interdiction of weapons coming south; in the dismantling of the financial structures that facilitate these drug cartels; in the arrest of major drug kingpins.

So I think we know how to measure progress. The challenge is maintaining a sustained effort. And as I said, something that President Calderón and myself absolutely recognize, is that you can't fight this war with just one hand. You can't just have Mexico making an effort but the United States not making an effort. And the same is true on the other side.

I think both our efforts have to be coordinated; both of our efforts have to be strengthened. I've made some very concrete commitments, already sending additional resources, already making additional investments. These are measurable in millions and, ultimately, billions of dollars over several years. And I believe that President Calderón has used enormous political capital to deal with this issue.

Obviously the Mexican people, particularly along the borders, have suffered great hardship. And as a consequence, if we partner effectively -- and that's why I brought many of my top officials on this trip, to interact with their counterparts -- I'm confident that we're going to make progress. Now, are we going to eliminate all drug flows? Are we going to eliminate all guns coming over the border? That's not a realistic objective. What is a realistic objective is to reduce it so significantly, so drastically, that it becomes once again a localized criminal problem as opposed to a major structural problem that threatens stability in communities along those borders and that increases corruption and threatens the rule of law -- that's the kind of progress that I think can be made.

And so, we are going to -- we're going to work as hard as we can and as diligently as we can on these issues -- always mindful, though, that the relationship between Mexico and the United States cannot just be defined by drugs. Sometimes there's a tendency for the media to only report on drug interdiction or immigration when it comes to U.S.-Mexican relations. And one of the things that we talked about is the extraordinary opportunities for us to work together on our commercial ties; on strengthening border infrastructure to improve the flow of goods; on working on clean energy, which can produce jobs on both sides of the border.

So we're going to stay very focused on this. We're going to make this a top priority, but we just always want to remember that our relationship is not simply defined by these problems; it's also defined by opportunities. And that's what we want to take advantage of as well.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: Thank you, President. I agree a great deal with you and I fully thank you for your support and understanding in this very difficult topic. I think the question is very relevant. I see a big opportunity for President Obama and myself, since we are going to be sharing the next four years as heads of our administrations, I see a big opportunity here.

And on this issue, what I hope to see at the end of my administration is actually many things. One is a reduction in the levels of criminal activities in our countries related to organized crime, which is also related to drug trafficking -- they go hand in hand. We have a strategy with short-, midterm, and long-term objectives.

In the short term, for example, we have set out to recuperate the security and tranquility of our citizens, particularly in those areas that have been harder hit by the crime. And this is where we have the joint operations, where we are mobilizing not only our federal police but also the army -- and this, regardless of the fact that it is not an easy matter and it hasn't been and it can change in the course of time, but at least we begin to see fruitful results in some areas.

For example, in the last quarter -- or rather compared to the last quarter of last year, our first quarter of this year, there was already a drop of 27 percent in criminal activities. That is as an average for the entire country, only in Ciudad Juarez -- as of the joint operation that we launched in February, between February and March violent deaths in Ciudad Juarez, crime-related -- violence related to crime dropped by 80 percent.

Of course I understand that the spectacular nature of some of these operations has really attracted worldwide attention. But with a very difficult crime rate that we had last year, despite them, crime in Mexico was 10.7 deaths because of crime for every 100,000 inhabitants. It is less than what it is in Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Venezuela, or Brazil in Latin America, and it is also a lower number than the crime rates of many U.S. cities.

I believe one issue has to be, of course, that we have to cut down on crime in Mexico, for sure, but, number two, I hope, in the course of time, to be a safer border and a more efficient border. As long as -- if we are able to stop the flow of drugs, illicit money and weapons, we will have greater progress both in the United States and Mexico. And one way to measure this is by appreciating and valuing the technological capabilities, particularly of nonintrusive detection at the border, so that for those who do want to make business and do want to trade, that the border is open, and those who want to commit crime, the border will be a closed area.

One way to measure this -- and here U.S. cooperation is essential -- is to have the right technology, particularly nonintrusive technology that will enable us to have safe borders. And the initiative, the Merida Initiative, is very much focused on this.

Now, in the midterm, we would like a renewal of our police forces in Mexico. At the end of my administration, I would like to be able to have a new federal police that will be worthy of the citizens' trust and that will be efficient. And here U.S. cooperation is also fundamental. Why? Well, because on our side we are cleaning our house, we are sweeping everything from top to bottom so that all the police forces, from the top officials at the Attorney General's office, the army, the navy, that all officials in Mexico, all police officials that we can truly trust in their honesty, and that at the same time, technologically, they will be top-notch, as the rest of the world, in investigation, in databases. We want a scientific police, one that is very well-trained in technology, and U.S. help will be very welcome and it will be essential.

We also have a judicial plan for oral trials. And I think that as we fulfill these objectives, many of them have already -- are part of our agreement on safety, security and protection. With a shared responsibility that we now have with President Obama and his team, we are certain that we will reach these objectives and that our strategy, which is the correct one, will have many more possibilities of achieving success, and that at the end of our administration we will have a Mexico, a United States, that are much safer and freer of violence -- violence free, rather.

Of course, drug trafficking cannot be ended by decree. As long as there is a supply of high -- or rather, is high demand, there will be a high supply. But what we can control is the effect of criminal activities in society, to stop the actions of organized crime, and we can also act preventively in order to bring down the consumption of drugs in the United States, and in Mexico, too, which also begins to be a problem of great concern to us.

Q Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President.

President Obama, you said in an op-ed that was out today that your new Cuba policy was part of an effort to move beyond the frozen disputes of the 20th century. Why then is it so limited? Why not open the door for all Americans to visit Cuba? And what will you say to your colleagues at the Summit of the Americas who want you to do more?

And, President Calderón, what do you think the United States should do more on Cuba in order to improve relations with the region? Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think that we should dismiss the significance of the step that we took. We eliminated remittance restrictions and travel restrictions for Cuban Americans who have family members in Cuba. For those families, this is extraordinarily significant. For the people in Cuba who will benefit from their family members being able to provide them help and to visit them, it's extraordinarily significant. We took steps on telecommunications that can potentially open up greater lines of communication between Cuba and the United States.

And so I think what you saw was a good-faith effort, a show of good faith on the part of the United States that we want to recast our relationship. Now, a relationship that effectively has been frozen for 50 years is not going to thaw overnight. And so having taken the first step, I think it's very much in our interest to see whether Cuba is also ready to change. We don't expect them to change overnight. That would be unrealistic. But we do expect that Cuba will send signals that they're interested in liberalizing in such a way that not only do U.S.-Cuban relations improve, but so that the energy and creativity and initiative of the Cuban people can potentially be released.

We talk about the ban on U.S. travel to Cuba, but there's not much discussion of the ban on Cuban people traveling elsewhere and the severe restrictions that they're under. I make that point only to suggest that there are a range of steps that could be taken on the part of the Cuban government that would start to show that they want to move beyond the patterns of the last 50 years.

I'm optimistic that progress can be made if there is a spirit that is looking forward rather than backward. My guidepost in U.S.-Cuba policy is going to be how can we encourage Cuba to be respectful of the rights of its people: political speech and political participation, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of travel. But, as I said before, I don't expect things to change overnight. What I do insist on is that U.S.-Cuban relationships are grounded with a respect not only for the traditions of each country but also respect for human rights and the people's -- the needs of the people of Cuba.

And so I hope that the signal I've sent here is, is that we are not trying to be heavy-handed. We want to be open to engagement. But we're going to do so in a systematic way that keeps focus on the hardships and struggles that many Cubans are still going through.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: I would not pretend to give advice or suggestions to President Obama on this matter or any other. Let me just say what I personally believe -- or rather what I believe about the Cuban reality. The question that has to be posed rather is whether the U.S. embargo on Cuba has worked. The reality is that the embargo has been there long before we were even born, and yet things have not changed all that much in Cuba. I think we would have to ask ourselves whether that isn’t enough time to realize that it has been a strategy that has not been very useful to achieve change in Cuba.

I do think -- I share fully the idea we do not believe that the embargo or the isolation of Cuba is a good measure for things to change in Cuba. On the contrary; the reality that we see there is that the reality has not changed. And it's because of internal factors, mostly, of course, but also because of external reasons, such as the embargo. Because of that, the Cubans have become impoverished.

I greet -- I welcome the measures that President Obama has taken in order to change this attitude, and to try to attempt -- and the attempt must be appreciated -- to change the policy towards Cuba little by little. But what is clear to me is that we both share the same ideals. I think we would both like to see the world living at some point under a full democracy, a world with full respect for human rights, with no exceptions whatsoever. We would like to see a world working with people being able to take care of their families, to live in peace, and those principles that must protect humanity. That we do share.

We also share the idea that each nation must be respected in its own decisions. It's like we were saying a moment ago when we were talking about the prohibition of assault weapons. Of course, we do not want those weapons to be out in the streets, but at the same time we want those decisions to come from the people themselves and to be self-determinant. And it's the same for Cuba. But I believe that the steps President Obama has taken are very positive.

Mexico is a good friend of Cuba, and Mexico is also a good friend of the United States. We want to be a good friend of Cuba and of the United States. We want both things. And we know that one day, the day that these principles we believe in prevail, that day we will be able to be neighbors, the three of us -- the United States, Cuba and Mexico.

What are the principles we believe in? Democracy, human rights, but also liberty, property, trade, free trade, free economy. And I think as long as those principles can function and bring benefits to the Cuban economy, then things can begin to change. We cannot change anything that has already taken place in the past, but I am certain that as heads of state, we can do a lot to try to make a different future, both for the world, both for our countries, and also in relation to Cuba.

I told President Obama that the best of luck in this panorama that is now so totally different from what U.S. policy has been in the past. I hope for the best, and I hope that more expeditious steps could be taken so that we can move forward in this regard, and that everything will be done with good understanding. And as Mexico can contribute in any way for two of our friends to work out what they have between themselves, I hope that we can contribute. And if our best contribution is just to maintain our respect, that is fine.

Last question.

Q Good afternoon. For President Obama. Mr. President, -- as U.S. senator in 2006 voted in favor of the approval of the construction of the border wall. I would like to know, and I think Mexicans would like to know, what is your real commitment of your administration to present a new migratory -- comprehensive migratory reform? What would be its scope? And when would you approve this reform? 
And on free trade, on NAFTA, it seems that because of the last events there's not a great deal of interest in the U.S. to apply or to comply with all the items in NAFTA. I would like to ask President Calderón whether you spoke of some of those issues during your conversations, whether you addressed the migratory issue and some of the NAFTA issues?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, with respect to the immigration issue, I think it would be useful to point out that I also voted twice for comprehensive immigration reform that would have provided a pathway for legalization and improvement of the orderly process of migration into the United States.

I've said before that we have to have a comprehensive approach, recognizing that the United States has a very legitimate concern -- if you've got hundreds of thousands of people from other countries coming into the United States without anybody knowing who they are, who when they arrive can often be exploited and, because they're not protected by various laws, undermine the wages of U.S. workers -- those are legitimate concerns on the part of the United States people and the United States government. And so working effectively with the Mexican government to create an orderly border is very important. And there are a whole host of strategies that we need to pursue.

What I've also said is that for those immigrants who are already in the United States -- and by the way, we focus a lot on Mexicans who have come into the United States, but the number of immigrants from Central America, from Ireland, from Poland are substantial as well; it's not -- this is not just an issue with respect to Mexico -- for those immigrants who have put down roots, may have come there illegally, I think they need to pay a penalty for having broken the law. They need to come out of the shadows, and then we have to put them through a process where, if they want to stay in the United States, they have an opportunity over time to earn that opportunity, for a legal status in the United States.

Now, we came close to getting that kind of reform done several years ago and then it became politicized. And my whole goal is to remove the politics of this and take a very practical, common-sense approach that benefits people on both sides of the border -- and creates a secure and safe border so you don't have people who are dying in the deserts as a consequence of a disorderly and illegal migration process. I think that's a goal that President Calderón and I share and one that we discussed during our bilateral meeting.

With respect to trade, Mexico is one of our largest trading partners. The amount of commerce that flows back and forth creates wealth in Mexico and it creates wealth in the United States. I have said repeatedly that I'm in favor of free trade. I know that there has been some concern about a provision that was placed in our stimulus package related to Mexican trucking. That wasn't a provision that my administration introduced, and I said at the time that we need to fix this because the last thing we want to do at a time when the global economy is contracting and trade is shrinking is to resort to protectionist measures.

My team is working with President Calderón's team to resolve this issue. I'm hopeful that we can resolve it in an effective way. It's not helpful to a number of U.S. producers who are interested in selling into Mexico and are fearful that they may be subject to countervailing tariffs or retaliation.

So we're going to see if we can get this fixed. But I can tell you that President Calderón and I are entirely on the same page in believing that we can create greater opportunities for trade and strengthen our commercial relationships between our two countries.

I have said before in the past, and I will continue to say, that as part of the NAFTA framework, that it would make sense for labor and environmental provisions to be enforceable within that agreement rather than just be viewed as a side agreement. But I recognize that we are in a very difficult time right now economically on both sides of the border and that those kinds of negotiations are going to need to proceed in a very careful and deliberate way, because we don't want to discourage trade; we want to encourage trade right now.

So I'm confident that our administrations are going to be able to work together, and it's going to be to the benefit both of Mexico and the United States.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: We spoke at length on migration and on trade, and particularly on the economy in general between both nations. President Obama is well aware, is very knowledgeable about the problem, and his position in favor of a comprehensive migratory reform is well known. I would simply repeat the idea -- refrain the idea that we share the objective of achieving an orderly, legal, productive migration between both countries.

I have said, and I maintain, that as a Mexican, as President of Mexico, it doesn’t make me particularly happy to see our people risk their lives going across a border, because I know that with every migrant that leaves we have the best of our people leaving -- the youngest, the most courageous, the strongest, the hardest-working -- they are the ones that are leaving. Because I have seen in many communities here in Mexico, and particularly the state I come from, where there are phantom towns now, where there are only the elderly, children, women, and no one else is left there.

So I am working hard to create in Mexico the conditions, the opportunities of work, of employment for our people here in Mexico. That is really the only way out that can put a stop to migration. I think that is the best way out, to create opportunities and employment in our country. But in the meantime, President Obama is very clear on what the problem consists of, and it's very important to establish those instruments that will enable people to come out of the shadows, as he himself has said, and that our region can gradually become more orderly, more legal and better migration flows.

I think the two of us share the idea that trade produces benefits on both sides of the border. Not only are there many Mexican workers that depend on their exports to the United States today -- by the way, in a very delicate situation that we're going through because of the economic situation, the drop in U.S. industry is very co-related to the drop in our Mexican industry -- but there are also many workers in the United States that depend on the purchases that we make of U.S. products. Today Mexican consumers are among the best buyers of U.S. products. Few consumers in the world buy as many U.S. products as we do here in Mexico.

So we must protect trade. And the best way of doing so is to allow it to flow naturally, with no restrictions. So going beyond the autonomous decisions that every country can take, and the legitimate exercise of the rights that are part of the pacts and agreements that we have in order to protect free trade, I agree with President Obama, we have to go further. We have to go beyond in order to improve trade between both our countries. And we do not want to restrict it. We can come to agreements; we might have certain differences; I believe that we can move a great deal forward in labor and environmental issues, but it concerns me that to reopen those things that have been proven to work well can merely create further obstacles and worsen the situation we have today.
Our focus today on practical matters -- and this is why --let me just mention three things that I believe we can work on. One is infrastructure at the border. I have talked to President Obama, I have shown him a list of 200 infrastructure projects of a larger or smaller scale that can generate employment both in the U.S. and Mexico at the border, and improve our competitiveness at the border. So we have focused on six projects of border bridges, border crossing points that can lead to further employment and prosperity for our people.

The second item is customs cooperation that will enable us to have better cooperation, more expeditious cooperation, with no drop in productivity -- to maybe have one single customs form, whether we're talking about exports or imports from one country to another; to have one single form that will allow us to reduce bureaucracy and make trade more expeditious.

And then also, third, concrete measures to have a harmonization of standards. Certain U.S. products, for example, need to have the units measured in pounds, and here we need them measured in kilos or in grams, we need to be able to have standards. If certain requirements differ from our two countries, I think we have to work towards a harmonization of these requirements.

So these practical matters that seem to be minor are actually quite important. And I think they can truly help us.

And let me wrap up by saying that one of the things we emphasized is that both of us are going through economic problems because of this international crisis that we're undergoing. But if we act intelligently we will understand that if we improve the North American competitiveness as a region that entails Canada, United States and Mexico, if we improve the competitive conditions of our entire region, vis-à-vis other regions such as Asia or Eastern Europe or the rest of Latin America, then I do believe we will be able to come out of this problem much, much faster.

Trade means opportunities, equal opportunities of employment and of prosperity for our peoples, always, always, and particularly today in these times of crisis and economic difficulties.

President Obama is undergoing tremendous efforts to improve things in the United States and he is exercising in international leadership to face this economic situation. We firmly support on our side this situation, doing everything we can in order to revert this critical situation. And I do believe one way to do it is by strengthening trade, not restricting it.

So, ladies and gentlemen, we now bring to an end our press conference. Thank you so much. We thank you.
END
5:24 P.M. CDT