It's Like Likability And Like Stuff

Whoops. For months now, the left has consoled itself with the idea that because Obama rates more likable in polls than Romney, voters will choose him in November even though their answers to every other poll question show a pro-Romney blowout in the works. A new poll by The Hill casts serious doubt on that. Let’s talk about the Senate too.

● I Like You, But I’m Not “In Like” With You. Polls have consistently shown Obama doing much better than Romney in the likability category. This seems a strange contradiction given that every other indicator goes against Obama. So what is going on? Looking at the way people make decisions, it strikes me that this high likeability really indicates that the voters have already made up their minds. In other words, since they’ve already decided, there have no reason to generate dislike for him to aid their decision. This fits with his amazingly steady low approval rating.

And now we have more reason to question the likability number. Indeed, according to a new poll by The Hill, 93% of likely voters said that competence and policies matter more than likability. That’s horrible news for Obama. Once you get away from likability, Obama’s in deep trouble. Even the The Hill, whose polls do lean left, found that 47% of voters share Romney’s values compared to 44% for Obama, 48% view Romney as the stronger leader compared to 44% for Obama, and 46%-44% view Romney as more trustworthy.

Interestingly, The Hill uses these numbers to conclude that Obama’s attacks on Romney “as a heartless corporate raider responsible for layoffs, outsourcing and tax secrecy” have “largely failed to change the narrative in the race.” Yep. So it sounds like all those conservative blogs that were pounding the table that Romney wasn’t responding correctly have been proven wrong. Imagine that.

● Senate Math. With 98 days to go until we can upgrade from the Moron to the Mormon, there is another aspect of the election we should consider: the Senate. The Republicans need to win the Senate to get their policies in place. Romney can make some changes through agency rules and the such, but any sort of significant policy changes just won’t be possible. So what are the odds the Republicans will win the Senate? Not as high as you would think.

The Republicans need to gain four seats to control the Senate, three if Romney wins. There are 33 Senate seats up for reelection this time. The Democrats are defending 22 of those. And of the eight seats considered most endangered, the Democrats hold six of those. Should be simple, right?

Well, not quite. Right now, it looks like the Republicans will pick up North Dakota, Nebraska and Missouri for sure. However, they may lose Maine and Massachusetts. In the key swing states of Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Ohio, the Republicans have compelling candidates, but they still trail. Everything I know about Virginia tells me the Republicans will win that, but the polls don’t reflect that yet either. So based on this, we would be looking at anywhere from -2 to +7 seats, with a more likely result between +1 to +5.

That said, in the last several elections, the undecided seats have tended to sweep to one party, and that’s the party with the momentum. That would be the Republicans. Moreover, Obama’s lack of coattails and excitement will hurt the Democrats in each of these states except maybe Ohio, where blacks are likely to turn out in huge numbers. I personally think the Republicans will gain five seats, but we won’t know until we get a lot closer. This will be much closer than it should have been.

● Here Come The Excuses. Finally, the Democrats are starting to build up excuses for the loss they are expecting. The most used excuse is likely to be Voter ID laws. These laws were passed in six swing states, including Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin, as well as several other less competitive states, and the left is claiming that these laws are aimed at blacks and the young, who apparently are incapable of getting state identification cards for some reason. They have even attached a number to this issue to make it sound scientific: 5,000,000!! Said Politico:

At least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.

Yeah, ok. It’s no coincidence that the enthusiasm of both of these groups is down right now, probably in about the exact amount the left claims will be affected by these Voter ID laws. Not to mention that if these groups wanted to foil us in our dastardly plan, they could actually go get a valid license and register to vote. Imagine that. But that wouldn’t give the Democrats an excuse, would it?

No doubt, more excuses will be forthcoming soon. Want to help them with some suggestions?

P.S. Don't forget, it WAS Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Same Crap. Different Package.

You will be seeing two important government figures swearing by all that's holy that they will provide all the documents and reveal all the information required "very soon." Both have been asked to explain why they have been secretly performing nefarious acts while denying them publicly despite all the apparent evidence.

The headline picture is US Attorney General Eric Holder. The picture accompanying this paragraph is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both Holder and Ahmadinejad have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and both have responded with denials, lies, obfuscation, and convenient compliance. But their most useful tool is delay. The script goes as follows: Look wounded when confronted with your failure to do what you were asked, and promise to do better next time.

Ahmadinejad has been lying about Iran's nuclear weapons development program for years. He has claimed that all Iranian nuclear development is strictly for peaceful purposes of producing energy. Though the country sits on an ocean of easily-extracted oil, good ol' Mahmoud says Iran needs nuclear energy so their people can have light and HBO (and a few missile silos). Occasionally, the timid international authorities produce evidence that disproves what he is saying. Then, Ahmadinejad quickly appears, makes a statement about how wrong those authorities are, and promises to produce documentation to prove it. This "cooperation" always occurs about the time authorities threaten to tighten the noose around his neck.

Attorney General Holder has exhibited the same behavior pattern. His indignation when accused of selective prosecution is a performance worthy of Sir Laurence Olivier. He denies racism in his dismissal of voter intimidation cases against the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia. He denies political cronyism when discussing the details of the Solyndra failure. He looks terribly wounded when someone accuses him of fake civil rights activity when denying states their right to purge their voter rolls and require photo ID for voting.

But he does come up with sufficient documentation and phony excuses to keep moving the questioning and investigation down the road. Now, the noose has been tightened in Congress in regard to Holder's knowledge of and participation in the organization of Operation Fast and Furious. This is especially noticeable in the hearings being conducted by Republican Darrell Issa of California in the House.

Holder has been adamant that he has provided all the information requested of his department by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He has also been absolutely stalwart in his contention that he has told the truth from the beginning. He claims he knew nothing about Mexican criminal cartel gunwalking until Congress discovered the deaths resulting from the disastrous operation, including the ambush murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry by cartel members using guns purchased during the operation.

Frustrated by the minuscule information provided to his committee by Holder's office and angered by Holder's denial of clear facts produced right in front of him, Issa finally told Holder last week that he would produce the documentation and testify truthfully by this coming Wednesday or face a contempt of Congress citation. This is the first time contempt has been specifically threatened, though it has been bandied about for months.

Like Ahmadinejad, Holder steadfastly denies his involvement in the nefarious activities. In fact, he continues to deny that his department was involved in any significant Fast and Furious activity whatsoever. At least that was what he did at the conclusion of the hearing. Then, like Ahmadinejad he snuck back to his office, and fired off a memo to Rep. Issa. He promised to produce more records and information regarding the operation, claiming that his epiphany came only after the Committee stated categorically that requested information would exclude sensitive law enforcement information.

Rather than admit the noose was tightening and that his political position was in some immediate danger, Holder requested a Monday meeting with Rep. Issa while calling his offer "an extraordinary accommodation of the committee's interest." To trash a song from The Music Man, "Cheat a little, talk a little, cheat a little, talk a little, cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat a lot, cheat a little more." The stall is on, once again. First Holder presents himself as the wounded victim just trying to help, then promises to produce some more useless and irrelevant (and frequently 90% redacted) documentation, then humbly requests a meeting between gentlemen to avoid any further unnecessary acrimony.

It's hard not to think that Holder believes he can stall any further damaging revelations until after the November elections. But now that the corresponding Senate committee is making some of the same sounds, and some Democrats are just now beginning to express doubt about Holder's veracity publicly, the tactic may not work much longer. Rep. Issa doesn't seem the least bit fooled by Holder's snake-charmer eyes, and has already announced that promises will no longer be sufficient. It's a true showdown, with Issa playing the lonely sheriff and Holder the proficient gunslinger.

This coming Wednesday could be the big gunfight, unless something truly significant emerges from Holder's secret vaults. But on Saturday, Rep. Issa said he will consider postponing the contempt hearing if the information provided by Holder is truthful and truly responsive. Holder wins the round, but he hasn't yet won the fight. What's your guess as to how this is going to be resolved?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

United Nations To The Rescue

And none too soon, I might add. The 2012 American national elections are coming on fast, and the racist oppressors in fourteen Jim Crow states have laws aimed at keeping minorities [blacks], the elderly, the mentally-deficient, convicted felons, and non-citizens from voting. Foot-dragging by secret racists in the administration and at the state level is allowing solid, salt-of-the earth people to be denied their right to vote, no matter what their status.

The nefarious plan to squelch minority voting revolves largely around requiring potential voters to show a valid photo ID (state or federally issued) before going into the voting booth. Now obviously, that's much like slavery, or the Holocaust. You can read all about it in our November discussion of the matter: Voter ID Laws. Since the Obama administration and the courts aren't moving fast enough to prevent this shredding of the Constitution and mass disfranchisement, the NAACP this week took the matter to the United Nations.

Now we all know that the United Nations is the one organization in the world that can deal with the mass extinction of whole races and ethnic groups, not to mention religious minorities. Only an organization as unprejudiced, upright, learned, benevolent and honest as the UN Human Rights Commission can force America into abandoning its racist ways.

Remember that requiring a voter to prove he is who he says he is is nothing short of racial oppression. After all, to get such an ID, the applicant must pick up a phone or mail a letter and fill out a short application. Don't be fooled by all those provisions for free ID or assistance in obtaining the ID that would allow a catatonic quadriplegic to obtain such an ID at no cost. That's just more propaganda to cover up the racist intent of the voter ID laws.

The NAACP (the racial minority wing of the Democratic Party) declares that voter ID laws are part of a concerted effort to drive down minority turnout. They intend to conduct demonstrations against the vile Jim Crow laws nationwide, starting in Washington DC on December 10th. The NAACP has become the master of agitprop since becoming irrelevant after the success of the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. And though the demonstrations are designed to coerce guilt-ridden white people and Republicans to toss out their inherent racism, why settle for a national forum when you can have an international forum?

So the NAACP has gone to the United Nations to correct America's human rights abuses. As soon as the UN figures out what to do with Israel (the other major racist nation), and what to do about its own failures to maintain peace in Africa and the Middle East, and clear up those allegations of mass murders and rapes being committed by UN troops, I'm sure it will immediately turn to the depredations of the Great Satan United States.

Now you may say to yourself, "what can the United Nations do about American voting laws?" Well, here's one thought. Barack Obama, he of half-black origin with a typical white grandmother, loves executive orders and playing at being Commander-in-Chief. As soon as the United Nations passes a resolution condemning white racism and demanding a change in American voting laws, this future candidate for Secretary-General of the United Nations could simply order the armed forces to invade the capitals of each of the offending states and conduct the voting on behalf of the oppressed minorities, the United Nations (and incidentally, the United States). No reason to be concerned with that pesky Constitution if it gets in the way of UN do-gooding.

Don't take my word on this. Just ask the leaders of the New Black Panthers Party in Philadelphia. Even a group as small as theirs was able to prevent white voter suppression in a major American city. Imagine what could be done with an entire battalion.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Voter ID Is A Racist Conspiracy

Or so says the NAACP. Chairman Benjamin Todd Jealous was joined by civil rights hysteric Rev. Al Sharpton and ethics-challenged Rep. Charles Rangel to denounce the current wave of voter suppression laws. In case you don't know, simple, inexpensive and readily-available official ID required for voting purposes is "voter suppression."

In reality, the only voting that gets suppressed by requiring valid identification is fraudulent or illegal voting. But since Democrats count on those votes, they are outraged. The race card is always a good way of attacking reasonable and unburdensome law. The same party that required rigged voting tests to suppress black voting in the South now wants no requirements to vote.

Using class warfare and race warfare as his stalking-horses, Jealous appeared on the steps of New York City Hall to announce: "The rallies are intended to get this conversation out of the thought leader class and down to the street corners, so folks understand that their rights are being attacked. This is the greatest assault on voting rights, happening right now, that we have seen since the dawn of Jim Crow."

The sanctity of the ballot box has been eroded badly over the past few decades. Patriots gave their lives to get the vote, but today it's too much effort to get out of bed, go to a polling place, show your valid ID, and mark a ballot. Absentee ballots for unusual circumstances have been replaced with mail-in ballots for the lazy. Early voting takes place with weeks to go before the election, disregarding the fact that a lot can happen during those weeks. Physical presence at the polls is made to sound archaic. Oregon has already experimented with voting by I-Pad.

Voting is not something that ought to be made as easy as buying a new shirt on Amazon.com. The franchise was a right for which people fought hard, risked much, and treaured greatly. Now, it's devolving into something that you grudgingly work into your busy schedule, if you can. Or it's something annoying that interferes in your life, like having to stop at a red light. Registering to vote is an imposition on one's life, requiring that a form actually be filled out with some information. It could take as long as five or even six minutes. What a burden!

Those who are of the least value to society, the lazy and shiftless, don't want to be further burdened by having to prove they are who they say they are in order to vote. The same people who can fill out reams of paperwork to get those beautiful, easy-to-use EBT free-food-from-the-government cards are somehow being oppressed by having to do a great deal less to get a valid state-issued identification card.

But that's not what the NAACP thinks. Going after the national movement to require valid identification already in place in Kansas, Tennessee and Wisconsin, and about to go into operation in Texas and South Carolina, Jealous says the requirements are draconian and oppressive. On the day that Mississippi amended its constitution to require valid photo voter ID, he charged that blacks, Hispanics, senior citizens, people with disabilities, and the poor are less likely to have the required photo IDs. He also argues that others would be disfranchised like students with school IDs, those who don't carry ID on their persons, and (get this) women who have ID that doesn't reflect their married names.

What a load of horse manure. Anybody too lazy or mentally-deficient to do the simple, inexpensive task of getting a valid state-issued photo ID shouldn't be voting anyway. How many legal Social Security recipients didn't have to prove who they were by validating their identity? How many adults (i.e., voters) don't have either a driver's license or an easily-obtained state ID? Most states will issue the IDs for free if the registrant is in dire financial straits, and many will even provide public transportation or home visits by state officials to assist in obtaining the ID.

But the Democrats and the NAACP prefer the "vote early, vote often, vote fraudulently, vote illegally" path. Requiring people to show up at the polls with a valid ID and eliminating all other forms of voting except for absentee ballots issued carefully under very special circumstances should be the norm. But it isn't, and won't be. In fact, voting is made far too easy for those who have no stake in America's success, along with illegal immigrants, and in Chicago, dead people. On the other hand, soldiers risking their lives on foreign battlefields have their absentee votes disqualified on ridiculous technical grounds.

Jealous, Sharpton and Rangel all demand that the Attorney General investigate the constitutionality of voter ID laws and take action against the states which have them. This would be the same Attorney General who dismissed voter intimidation convictions against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia--cases which had already been won. In the House of Representatives, a group including the Black Caucus sent a request to all fifty state secretaries of state to oppose voter identification laws.

Joining the gang of three at the news conference were the United Federation of Teachers, the Health Care Workers Union, the National Council of La Raza and the Asian-American Legal Defense. Aside from the statements, the group has called for a national day of protest against the voter ID laws for December 10. I don't think I'll be joining them.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republicans Pushing Boldly Ahead

The November 2010 election was a major triumph for Republicans across the country. Capturing a net six governorships and net 680 state legislative seats (blowing away the post-Watergate record 628 seat swing), Republicans now control 29 governorships and 25 state legislatures (the Democrats control fifteen, ten more are divided or nonpartisan and the other seven are imaginary). So what have the Republicans done with this victory? You might be surprised.

No doubt, you’ve heard about the brouhaha in Wisconsin between Governor Walker and the unions. But that’s only the beginning. Indeed, Wisconsin Republicans are now pushing through their entire agenda before recall elections can rob them of control of their Senate. This includes (1) plans to legalize concealed weapons, (2) deregulation of the telephone industry, (3) expanding school vouchers, (4) undoing early release of prisoners, (5) requiring photo ID from voters before they can vote, (6) circumventing the court imposed stay and stripping public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights, (7) cutting one billion dollars from the budget, and (8) passing a redistricting plan to implement the 2010 census. The consequences of this could be enormous. And Wisconsin is not alone:

● Twenty states are currently taking up or completing measures designed to limit the power of public sector unions. These efforts should ultimately result in a neutering of public sector unions, who use their position to support Democrats, both financially and with volunteers. As an aside, even the Democrats in Massachusetts just took away the unions’ rights to bargain their health care . . . oddly, there were no protests or death threats when the Democrats acted.

● Eighteen states are trying to pass right-to-work laws to join the 22 states that already have them. New Hampshire passed such a law, but it doesn’t look like the Republicans can overcome a veto by the state’s Democratic governor. Right-to-work laws make closed shops illegal and prevent unions from forcing employees to pay union dues. This generally kills off unions once employees are given a genuine choice. Passage of more of these laws could spell the end for private sector unions, who are near death in most states already, and will further cripple the Democratic Party.

● Another thirty states are cracking down on illegal immigration. This has the potential of robbing the Democratic Party of its base of illegal voters.

● Another thirty states are trying to pass laws requiring voters to produce a drivers license or official picture identification before they can vote. Since Indiana’s law on this point was upheld by the United States Supreme Court 6-3 in 2008 (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board), seven other states have enacted similar laws: Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota. Kansas just passed such a law. Ohio’s House has passed a similar law, which is expected to pass their Senate and be signed by the governor. Wisconsin will pass theirs as well. And 27 more are trying.

The Democrats are, of course, furious. They are making all kinds of false claims about the horrible consequences of passing these laws. For example, they are trying to claim this change could cost millions in training costs for poll watchers. Of course, that ignores the fact that poll watchers get training already and adding a line that says “check their drivers license” won’t add a penny. They are claiming this will intimidate minorities, which is also garbage. Any minority “brave enough” to appear at a voting booth should be brave enough to bring their drivers license. They are claiming this will keep people without drivers licenses from voting, which deliberately ignores the fact that each of these laws allows people without drivers licenses to provide alternative proof. . . which, to the horror of angry Democrats, does not include college IDs.

What’s really going on here is that this has the potential of eliminating a good deal of Democratic voter fraud, see e.g. ACORN and Wisconsin, where Democratic groups pretend to be other registered voters. This could eliminate the Democrats' ability to magically find an extra 1-2% during close elections.

● Wyoming and Missouri have barred their courts from applying Sharia law or foreign law.

● And there’s more. Gun rights are being solidified, conservative social policy issues are being passed, taxes are going down, spending is being cut and states are regaining their financial health. And redistricting is starting and it looks like a total disaster for the Democrats.

That's not a bad return on an election that only happened a few months ago.

Naturally, liberals are very upset. They are so upset that liberal mouthpieces like the New York Times are actually encouraging people to sue or protest or do anything else they can to stop these evil Republicans. Even funnier, their most recent talking point has them all whining that this “goes way beyond what Republicans campaigned on. . . they campaigned on jobs. . . not any of this!” Aw, poor babies. I guess elections do have consequences after all.

So, what else have you heard about and what else would you like to see (or not see)?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Foolish Consistency

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "there you go again." Eric Holder and his racist politicized Department of Justice have struck again. Under the direction of the same Deputy Assistant Attorney General who nixed the judgments in the Black Panther voter intimidation cases, DOJ has just stopped the reform of a miserably unsuccessful South Carolina school district.

Deputy AG Julie Fernandes used the consent decrees resulting from the Voting Rights Act (1965-1968) without any regard either for the Act or the words and intent of the attendant consent decrees. Her boss, Assistant Attorney General Tim Perez, and ultimately Eric Holder himself have distorted the law and the decrees for the sole purpose of advancing their belief that the Voting Rights Act is designed solely to protect black citizens. The "review" required by the Act based its decision not to allow the exception on everything except the express purpose of the Act and the intent of the decrees. The action was taken by the DOJ after it was swamped by demands from the NAACP and the ACLU. Briefs filed by the white citizens of Fairfield County and their black allies were entirely ignored.

In Fairfield County, South Carolina, a district which is 59% black, there is a school board already comprised of six blacks on a seven person board. The schools are among the worst performers in the nation. The citizens of the district decided that two more reform members should be added to the board to bring the district into the modern world, and convinced the South Carolina legislature to agree. The DOJ Civil Rights Division would not allow the change. Even though the white population is only 41%, and the likelihood was that at least one, if not both. of the reform seats would be filled by blacks, the DOJ would not yield.

The DOJ ruling analyzed the change solely on the basis of how the change would affect black residents (the majority). But Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) expressly states that a change in procedures must be approved under the consent decree unless the change negatively impacts the minority in the area. Well, the minority is white, and along with their frustrated black reform allies, claimed that the present board was totally ineffective and harmful to students' futures regardless of race or color. In other words, it was the minority which the VRA was designed to protect, and it was that very same minority which requested the change.

The 1992 United States Supreme Court case of Presley v. Etowah County Commission established clear rules for when the DOJ Civil Rights Division is allowed to strike down a change in local governance. They are required to approve the change so long as: The change does not alter the manner of voting, alter candidacy requirements, alter the composition of the electorate, or create or abolish an elective office. But the additional school board members would be appointed, and of the requirements, that was the only one that even came close to supporting the DOJ action. The addition of two appointed members of a school board therefore violates absolutely no portion of the consent decree.

That didn't stop DOJ from voiding the action anyway. So what did the DOJ base its ruling on? The specious and totally incorrect assumption that the change "reduces the proportion of positions for which minority voters can elect candidates of choice." What they really mean is it increases the number of board members the Democratic machine can't control. In Presley the Supreme Court specifically found that such a change only concerns the distribution of power among officials and has no direct relation to or impact on voting. Well, nobody in his right mind believes that the career lawyers in the AG's office who agree with the Supreme Court decision have any voice in the machinations of the DOJ.

Even if the DOJ were right that this comprised a genuine VRA/consent decree change, it would by its nature be acceptable because it protects the minority whites. But since DOJ believes that the VRA protects blacks only (and I use the term "protects" loosely), it made its racist and illogical decision entirely on the leftist divide-and-conquer fake lawyering by Holder and his gang of political shysters. Another opportunity to improve the education and test scores of black and white students alike bludgeoned by the post-racial Obama administration. The theory apparently is that any act that would benefit black majority students is suspect if it incidentally helps minority white students as well. Better that nobody benefit than that white students should participate in the benefit.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Shades Of Huey Newton--Black Liberator

He who laughs last, laughs best. That cackling sound you're hearing is Black Panther co-founder Huey P. Newton laughing at the white liberals who thought the Panthers were a civil rights organization and that by supporting their cause, the law would be adhered to without regard to race. It's not easy to guffaw amid the lapping flames of hell, but if anyone could do it, it's Huey.

I have mentioned in the past that the next time I would discuss the New Black Panthers voter intimidation dismissals would be when the report of the Civil Rights Commission on the subject was issued. That sad day has come to pass, and it's a tragically-flawed document. Flawed because it reached its conclusions without having done the honorable thing. It didn't wait until Eric Holder's Justice Department responded to the Commission's many direct questions about the dismissals. Holder stonewalled successfully, and the Commission let him get away with it.

I understand the need to bring matters to an end, but not when the work is incomplete. Unlike the unrelated report from the Commission under Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry in the 90s, this document included a minority report. But that only skewed the conclusions farther. Commissioner Abigail Thernstrom, normally unable to tolerate half-truths, caved in and essentially joined the majority. It wasn't a complete capitulation, but it indicates that she has been fighting the good fight almost alone for so long that she just ran out of steam.

Holder and his minions, under the leadership of the first post-racial President, played a game of hide and seek in which hide worked and seek didn't. When the Department of Justice political lawyers didn't outright lie, they stalled, danced, pretended not to understand what was being asked, and sent any Department dissenters into DOJ Siberia. A few courageous career lawyers simply resigned rather than be part of a massive coverup.

For background on the voter intimidation cases and the sleazy dismissal of charges already proven to a court's satisfaction, go to A Difference of Opinion, Holder's Mouthpiece, Thernstrom Hiccups, The Facts?, and Hold That Tiger. Although I am very concerned with the issue, I'm not obsessed with it despite the numerous past posts. It's simply a matter of the way the information has, from the very beginning, dribbled out. The Holder Justice Department wanted this travesty to come out in small doses in order to keep the whole bloody mess from being exposed all at once. The mainstream media were delighted to help. For instance, how many of you reading your big city dailies even knew the Commission had issued its report?

The sum and substance of my rejection of the report is that it was not only poor investigation and a cowardly Commission retreat, but it spits on the public's right to know all the relevant information and have the Department of Justice held accountable just like any other entity. The Department of Justice investigated itself and found it was doing a wonderful job, protected Obama's and Holder's highly-politicized appointments, denied the distinctly racial overtones of the Department's internal policies, and denigrated the right of the Civil Rights Commission even to ask "what's going on in your department?"

Why did this "internal investigation" take sixteen months? Where did Holder and the DOJ shysters find those phony executive privileges never recognized in law? Why did Holder put purely political functionaries in charge of the investigation instead of competent career DOJ lawyers? Why did Holder and his department stall and obfuscate answers to legitimate questions about the Panther dismissals from Congress, the Civil Rights Commission and a few honest news reporters? None of these questions are answered in the Report, let alone the simple basic question: "Why did your department dismiss cases which had already been won?"

The single question that was directly asked in relation to the dismissals hovered over whether Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes adopted and championed a policy of not enforcing two laws distinctly designed to prevent harassment of voter--without regard to whether the alleged perpetrators are white. Returning to Mary Frances Berry for a moment, as Chairwoman she boldly asserted that the voter intimidation provisions of the Voting Rights Acts were designed solely to protect black voters from intimidation by whites. The law says nothing of the kind, and is designed solely to protect our most precious right--the right to vote our consciences regardless of color. All evidence and testimony that was actually presented at the Civil Rights Commission points to Fernandes as holding precisely the same view of the law as Berry.

Fernandes's name is all over the investigation, and in the only sworn testimony given by any employees of DOJ, Fernandes was shown as clearly determined to enforce racially selective prosecution. But Fernandes didn't testify, Holder buried those dissidents who remained with DOJ, and the political DOJ lawyers simply refused to cooperate with the Commission or Congress. Yet given Fernandes's critical involvement in the core question raised by the Commission, the two liberals who wrote the 23 page comment ending the investigation never mentioned her name--not even once.

That comes as no surprise to me, since one of the two Commissioners is former San Francisco Supervisor Michael Yaki. Those of us San Franciscans who were not drowned in red rhetoric and purple prose referred to him as "Yakkety Yaki." The man could put together half the words in the dictionary to say and prove absolutely nothing. Only his conclusionary sentences were brief, and they usually amounted to "I'm right, you're wrong." He was a master at ignoring the 500 pound evidentiary gorilla in the room in order to concentrate on the conjectural gnat. Nothing has changed, and his joint comments on the New Black Panthers prove it.

As for Thernstrom, she said: "It is simply impossible to believe that Fernandes said anything like what was reported, unless she's a moron." Well, I have my opinion on that, but I'll leave that to you readers to figure it out. Thernstrom went off the rails. It wasn't just "reported." It was contained in sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury, by career [former] DOJ lawyers. And it is unrefuted in any official way since Holder produced no testimony or witnesses directly addressing the issue or the sworn testimony. Given all that, it's a mystery why Thernstrom added in a dissent: "The majority charges that racial double standards govern the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in the Holder Justice Department. If that can be convincingly demonstrated, it will be a grave indictment of this administration. But that evidentiary showing awaits further investigation by the Department of Justice and Congress (emphasis added).

Well, Dear Abby, unrefuted sworn testimony is regarded as evidence. Further investigation? Are you crazy or just full of anti-depressants? Given the complete disregard for the law and legal ethics demonstrated by Holder and his department so far, why would anyone in his right mind believe that Holder is suddenly going to be struck by pangs of conscience and start cooperating and/or telling the truth? Holder has the same contempt for Congress that he has for the Commission. It's another example of leftist race-baiting thinking: "Nobody should interfere with our doing the right thing, as only we can define the right thing."

Frankly, I don't remember seeing Holder out there with us on the forefront of the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he was in diapers at the time. His head is still wrapped in diapers--dirty diapers. But I can tell you from personal experience, we did not fight to replace white voter intimidation with black voter intimidation. We worked hard and long to assure that the vote was a human right which could not be denied to blacks or whites in a free society. And despite all the Holder shucking and jiving, at the original hearing a civil rights worker who was in the heart of Dixie during the 60s testified that he never observed white intimidation of black voters that was as bad as what he saw in Philadelphia.

The Commission majority simply refused to find even the smallest wrongdoing in the dismissals. It's a good thing that Lady Justice wears a blindfold, or we'd be able to see that nasty black eye. Laugh, Huey, laugh.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Michelle Votes

Pictured is the First Lady casting her early ballot in Chicago on Thursday. As usual, she was very understated and went about her private business of casting her citizen's vote quietly and without fanfare. After casting her ballot, Michelle commented to reporters: "That's the second time I've been proud of America. We didn't even need the New Black Panthers to protect the polls."

All right. I made that up. But Princeton and Harvard graduate and legal genius Michelle (Wikipedia says her occupation is "lawyer," so it must be true) decided to hold an impromptu political rally inside the Chicago polling place. She told some of her fellow voters that she had voted to support her husband and to help Democrats who need to be in office for the betterment of America. The average person might be a little annoyed by the partisanship, but an alleged lawyer is supposed to know, well, the law.

And Illinois law is clear. No kind of political speech within the sanctity of the polling place. A lawyer would know that expressing her view of why she voted the way she did, and for whom, is political speech forbidden by the law of her home state. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 as cold oatmeal and 10 being a tsunami hitting New York City, I make this a 2 or 3. The exact wording of the Illinois statute is: "No person shall engage in any political discussion within any polling place or within 100 feet of any polling place." So obviously, this is a rather technical violation that a layman could easily make without thinking.

But two things occur to me. First, the Obamas hold themselves out to be ethical, knowledgeable followers of the law and the Constitution as well as practitioners of law. Lawyers are supposed to be held to a higher standard of care and knowledge, most particularly about the niceties of the most important act a free citizen can accomplish--the vote. Lawyers have been disciplined, suspended and disbarred for far more technical and much less far-reaching unprofessional acts.

Second, there is the mainstream media non-coverage of the event--very much in keeping with yesterday's discussion. If Laura Bush had done something half this bad, the press would have made it the biggest story of the week, complete with calls for her husband to take her out behind the woodshed and administer punishment. The screams of agony and indignation over Laura's attempt to derail the democratic process and unlawfully influence voters would have been heard 'round the world--twice. And Laura was a librarian, not a "lawyer."

Michelle the Lawyer didn't actually electioneer--which is what most people would think of when considering speech at a polling place. But the Illinois statute was written broadly to avoid any hint of politics or influence where people are voting. Section 17-29 of the Illinois Elections Code goes beyond electioneering, forbidding any political discussion in or near a polling place. Michelle clearly suffers from attacks of logorrhea, but this one time she should have been able to control it.

It is also important to note that though she did not make those remarks at the site directly to reporters, she knew full good and well they were there, listening and recording. So she wasn't really just having a little kaffee klatsch with a couple of local private citizens. Her "sincere" reasons for voting for Democrats and her husband's policies were meant to be heard far beyond the polling place. Which would be perfectly fair politics if the remarks had not been made within the polling place.

So Michelle's message didn't get out to the vast audience she intended it to reach because to do so would require the MSM to highlight the fact that Michelle, plainly and simply, broke the law. Some publications printed the message anyway, and ignored where the comments were made. Others, if mentioning the location at all, denigrated the idea that this was anything more than a simple slip-up. The networks either ignored the whole thing entirely, or mentioned a controversy stirred up by anti-Obama Republicans who were creating a tempest in a teapot (at a Tea Party?).

So even though I'd give her a slap on the wrist and a pass for this breach of ethics and decorum, and violation of election law, it's still an important story, if only because once again, the MSM is still participating in the perpetual political campaigns of the Obamas.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Abigail Thernstrom Disagrees On The Black Panthers Cases

Never let it be said that all conservatives march in lockstep. I recently posted an article on the reprehensible dismissal of the Black Panther voter intimidation cases. Dr. Abigail Thernstrom, a member of the US Commission on Civil Rights and a solid conservative takes issue with those of us who felt this deserved serious scrutiny and a few lopped-off heads.

Dr. Thernstrom has been a strong advocate for civil rights the old-fashioned way. Equal treatment for all, regardless of race, creed, color, social station or economic class. So when she takes a stand quite different from mine, I can't simply dismiss her as being a kook. She is not. And I feel that if I am to justify my position, I must examine hers with a neutral eye (not easy to do for someone with my ego). I respectfully disagree, but she makes a point. Let's talk a bit about where she's coming from, and where she wants to go.

In the wake of the Black Panther controversy, Thernstrom says: "Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation--the charge--are very high." Fair enough. But just because a case is difficult doesn't automatically mean it shouldn't be pursued. More importantly, default judgments had already been entered in specific cases, so there's nothing left to prove except monetary damages--and that's the easy part.

"Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case," says Thernstrom. I respectfully disagree. She bases her "overheated" accusation on the fact that "the two Panthers have been described as 'armed'--which suggests guns." No, it suggests armed--as in clubs and chains. Dr. Thernstrom has never been involved in a gang fight. She apparently doesn't know that those instruments can inflict serious bodily harm. The law is about the threat--the intimidation--not about an actual assault and battery. "Brandishing" is a charge all of its own, yet Dr. Thernstrom says "one of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged (actually it was proved) that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way." Yep--I'd certainly call that brandishing.

Here's where I think Dr. Thernstrom went over the cliff (on this single issue only): "Get a grip, folks. The New Black Panther Party is a lunatic fringe group that is clearly into racial theater of minor importance. It may dream of a large-scale effort to suppress voting . . . . But the Panthers have not realized their dream even on a small scale." When it comes to a basic American right such as voting, there is no "small scale," and just as it doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, it doesn't take a genius to know that what the Panthers did in Phildelphia was voter-intimidation. There's absolutely no way to spin that into harmlessness.

It's also important to remember that these were civil, not criminal prosecutions against the Panthers. Dr. Thernstrom seems to be making the mistake of thinking that proving the cases beyond a reasonable doubt would be difficult if not impossible. But that is not the standard in civil prosecutions. Such suits require only proof by clear and convincing evidence, of which there was plenty.

So now that I've discussed why I think Dr. Thernstrom is wrong on the Black Panther cases, how do I go on to be almost effusive in my praise for her? I look to her record, which is one of bold support of equal rights and bold opposition to special rights, and her inability to remain silent in the face of massive injustice and race preferences. Her tenure on the Civil Rights Commission has included many ugly confrontations with the race-baiting leftist members. One of the most intense was Thernstrom's ongoing battle with former Chairman Mary Frances Berry who refused to seat a Bush appointee to the Commission and attempted to retain her own seat at the end of her term. One of Berry's statements particularly incensed Thernstrom: "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect white men and do not apply to them."

She might take issue with me on this, but I think two factors motivated her outburst on the Black Panther cases. First, after so many years on the Commission, Dr. Thernstrom has become just plain exhausted trying to rectify even the simplest and most obvious of civil rights violations. It has been a herculean task, and she can be forgiven for being dismissive of a series of cases which will probably end up going nowhere, given the nature of the Holder Justice Department and the passage of time.

Equally importantly, Dr. Thernstrom sees the possibility of major future confrontations over the Voting Rights Act, most specifically the ongoing problem of majority minority districts which wish to free themselves from earlier consent decrees that required minimum representation by minorities. The Holder Justice Department has consistently refused the pleas of nearly all black districts to be released from the consent decrees which were entered when whites completely controlled those districts. These decrees have ceased to serve their purpose, since the odds are extremely high that no matter which party or which philosophy prevails in one of those districts, the winner will almost certainly be a black person. And that was the sole purpose of the consent decrees in the first place.

The Holder Justice Department has also strongly stated that in the wake of the Census, it will actively support the maximum possible number of majority minority districts, whether they are under the consent decrees or not. This no longer simply guarantees black representation, it in reality nearly assures the perpetual election of Democrats. And this all flies in the face of the core civil rights belief that in a non-racist society, minorities would be elected to political office solely in numbers proportional to the black and Hispanic populations. By careful redistricting, the Holder people will be supporting artificially gerrymandered "all black" districts regardless of the actual distribution of the racial and ethnic groups over the larger picture of a given geographical area.

So long as the consent decrees continue, that means that in those districts, any consideration other than race will give rise to massive litigation and delays in holding elections, particularly when the office of the Attorney General (charged with allowing or disallowing release from the consents) is determined never to let a good consent decree go to waste. Requests for release from the decrees are routinely denied, despite what has frequently turned out to produce ludicrous results. This process is called "preclearance," and it only requires the disapproval of a very minor DOJ functionary.

Though Thernstrom (and I) believe that absent a major shift in the makeup of the US Supreme Court, it is substantially likely that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act will ultimately be declared unconstitutional. But we both recognize how much serious damage can be done both to voting rights and racial relations between now and then. Thus, she considers the Black Panthers cases to be "small potatoes" because of the limited number of perpetrators and victims involved as compared with the vast potential mischief built into the plans of the Holder Justice Department as they relate to the Voting Rights Act. I concede that she has a point, but just because one issue may involve fewer people than a bigger issue, that doesn't mean it's small potatoes when major rights are involved. The Black Panthers weren't charged with spitting on the sidewalk, after all.

On July 5, I posted a piece about the Black Panthers, and one attorney specifically (even though half your comments still seem to be in the Blogger Black Hole). J. Christian Adams testified as scheduled, and though it was not a blockbuster, he did name a few names, referred to several others, and fully demonstrated that the dismissal of the Black Panthers cases was purely political. The Committee seems to be viewing the testimony with the same lack of enthusiasm shown by Dr. Thernstrom, though likely for entirely less noble reasons.

But there has been another development involving this attorney, and the "bigger picture" that Dr. Thernstrom was determined to call to the attention of the public. While Thernstrom emphasized the importance of the consent decrees and future gerrymandering, Adams has decided to go public with a related issue. Section 8 of the Federal Motor Voter Act specifically requires that voter registrars remove deceased and illegal voters from the voter rolls. A section chief at Holder's DOJ has apparently ordered the DOJ attorneys not to enforce this provision because "it would decrease voter participation." I'm afraid that there's no way to parody that remark because it is pure parody in and of itself. Yes, it's true. If dead people are forbidden to vote, participation will indeed go down. In Chicago alone, dead Democrats comprise 20 or 30 percent of the vote.

I mention this recent development for two reasons. First and most obviously, it will be interesting to see how Dr. Thernstrom feels that this facet of the law fits into the pending future voting disasters along with the consent decrees. But secondly, it is fascinating that Adams has decided that just being a good boy and doing his job, even at the risk of being fired, is not sufficient. He has now decided to go very public with his accusations. And he has proven he's a smart lawyer by pre-empting many future attacks on his character and abilities. He has used PajamasMedia to post his entire work record, which is comprised entirely of favorable to highly-favorable reviews by his superiors at DOJ, Democrats and Republicans alike.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hold That Tiger--Er, Panther

The Obama administration, through Law Lord Eric Holder's Department of Justice, recently announced the dismissal of all charges against New Black Panther Party "poll watchers" in Philadelphia. Most of you already know the story. Paramilitary outfits. Baseball bats and chains. Racial epithets hurled at potential voters. Blocking the entrance to the polling place. A civil rights worker who participated in the voter registration marches in the South in the 60s said he had never seen anything this bad anywhere in the South.

As you may also know, several of the defendants in the subsequent Voter Rights Act prosecutions were held civilly liable for their acts. The police and the local law enforcement authorities refused to take criminal action against the thugs, so the federal civil enforcement division of the Department of Justice had to do the best it could. Defaults were taken when the defendants refused to answer summonses and subpenas. But the worst the civil authorities could do to them was to impose civil penalties and obtain restraining orders and permanent injunctions against further acts of voter initimidation. Hard-working professionals in the Voters Rights Division of the Department of Justice did journeyman's work in obtaining the verdicts. But even at that, the stiffest penalty was a "keep away" order for the miscreants which forbade them to show up at polling places until December of 2010, leaving them plenty of time to show up again in 2012.

But the old order changeth. Eric Holder, he of noble speech who declared us all cowards for not speaking about race, had his political minions dismiss the charges, including those already proven. He wants everyone to speak about race, except of course himself and his department. When asked why the charges were dismissed, he danced and sang, but forgot to answer the question. Many people wanted to talk about race, as in "why did you dismiss charges against these gangsters--was it related to race?" But Mr. Holder and his gang of high-level special interest lawyers wouldn't give anyone straight answers. The professionals in the department could do nothing but shake their heads in disbelief while the amateur lawyers and professional victimologists unraveled the work they had done over a period of over a year.

After pressure from Congressional leaders such as Rep. Lamar Smith and Rep. Frank Wolf, and considerably more from the public, the United States Civil Rights Commission has acted on the outcry, and has sent a formal demand to the Attorney General's office which is called a "letter of inquiry." This first happened in June, and there is a statutory requirement that the Attorney General's office respond within thirty days. Allowing for time for preparation and general lackadaisical procedures at the Attorney General's office, the Commission allowed the deadline to come and go. But recently, pundits on TV and the blogs have once again called for action after receiving interminable non-answers to their questions. Public disgust with the dismissals was now revivified, and it spurred the Civil Rights Commission into further action.

Last week, General Counsel for the Commission contacted the Justice Department to inquire if and when a response would be forthcoming. The Commission further informed the Attorney General's office that on Friday the Commission would consider the Department of Justice to be uncooperative. Therefore, in addition to the routine investigation it was conducting into the reprehensible activities of the New Black Panther Party in general, it was going to do one thing more. The Commission is required by law to prepare no less than one full-year study each year on a matter relating to national civil rights enforcement. As a result of the Attorney General's intransigence, that study would now focus on the failure to uphold the successful litigation against the Panthers.

At long last, the Commission got action from the Attorney General's office. But not the action one would expect from an administration that claims to be "the most transparent" in American history. For once, the legal beagles at Justice moved quite quickly--to cover their rear ends. The Department, that same day, sent a letter to the Commission stating that an Office of Professional Responsibility (an arm of the Justice Department) investigation was under way, and that until it was completed, the Commission would receive no further information from the Attorney General's office. Those who are familiar with the OPR had already concluded that any investigation by that office would probably be a whitewash, but it was still the first anybody had heard of any such investigation being conducted.

Insiders at the Commission variously reported that several of the Commissioners were "aghast," "ashen-faced," and "in total shock." Whether or not the OPR at the Justice Department had started an investigation into the matter (betting is heavy on that being baloney), it is still no legal excuse for failing to comply with the Commission's formal request. The Commission is specifically and independently charged with investigation of enforcement of civil rights laws. The Voting Rights Act also specifically empowers the Commission to act when voter rights are interfered with on the basis of race. So the Commission had two obligations to investigate, and the Attorney General simply decided to stonewall, without any legal authority or precedent behind him.

The Democrats conducted multiple vexatious investigations into the Attorney General's office during the Bush administration. But in each case, the Attorney General's office responded promptly and provided the information requested. This included the perfectly legal firing of nine incompetent U.S. Attorneys, and the investigation of Voting Rights Section Chief Jack Tanner, both by Congress and the Justice Department's own Office of Professional Responsibility. Furthermore, in this matter, the OPR would be limited to investigating whether politics or other improper considerations played any role in overriding the decision of the career professional attorneys who opposed the dismissals. That is a much narrower issue, and it would not address the Civil Rights Commission's specific questions nor discharge the Commission's responsibilities--even if the OPR conducted a genuine investigation, which seems highly unlikely.

The legalese contained in the Commission's formal letter of investigation (not the earlier inquiry) can be summed up in the following way. First, the Commission wants to determine if the change in the Attorney General's response is a change in the Attorney General's formal policy for answering a letter of inquiry regarding re-opening prior investigations of civil rights violations. Secondly, the Commission needs to know, new policy or not, if the policy followed in the New Black Panther Party cases would produce different results in other voter intimidation cases. And finally, the Commission wants to know if the Justice Department has investigated other matters in a similar manner where the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were allegedly violated.

Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General and three other political appointees denied that they rather than the career attorneys made the decision to dismiss the charges, including those already proven. There is considerable evidence to the contrary, including several career attorneys in the Justice Department who were not directly involved in the cases discovering that Christopher Coates, DOJ Voting Rights Section Chief, Civil Rights Division, opposed the dismissals, but was overruled by the others.

The Friday meeting produced a result that can't be too pleasing to Eric Holder. By a 5-0 vote, the Commission determined to pursue the year-long investigation called for by law, and make the Holder dismissals the focus of that investigation. It further determined to send a second formal letter to the Attorney General demanding that his office cease stonewalling and comply with the Commission's demands, or show sound legal cause for failing to do so. Some experts fear that the President would order the Attorney General to refuse to cooperate, invoking executive privilege. After the Gates brouhaha, it doesn't seem likely that the President would do that, but he does seem to have a tin ear for public opinion.

In a further development, Republicans on the Hill are expressing considerable anger about the Department of Justice's refusal to cooperate with the Commission. A hold has been placed on the nomination of the Department of Justice nominee to be Civil Rights Division head, Thomas Perez. It is unlikely that the Republicans will let go of what little leverage they still have over the peregrinations of the Attorney General's office. For that reason, the appointment of Perez may be held up for the entire longevity of the investigation being conducted by the Commission on Civil Rights.

The Holder Justice Department has been very politically motivated in its selective prosecutions, suits, and dismissals. There is no reason to believe that Holder will be any less zealous in avoiding the consequences of this outrageous action of behalf of the Black Panthers. But if the Commission succeeds in proving that there was special treatment, racial consideration, and/or unusual policy making, then Holder may not be able to hide behind his cloak of transparency much longer.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Black Panthers Are Safe at Polls in Philadelphia

Over the past few hours, CNN, Fox News, The Philadelphia Bulletin and The Washington Times have all reported that the cases against the New Black Panther Party members who showed up as "poll watchers" at a Philadelphia precinct last November have been dismissed or reduced to near-nothingness by the Obama/Holder Justice Department. The Panthers had shown up at the precinct with the usual poll watcher tools--a police nightstick, some chains, and paramilitary uniforms.

The federal action against the Panthers charged "coercion, threats and intimidation, racial threats and insults, menacing and intimidating gestures, and movements directed at voters and potential voters, and deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to a polling location." All of this had been caught on film and audio, and played on TV and in print media nationwide. Even Obama expressed outrage. Among the defendants was Jerry Jackson, an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher. The defendants refused to appear before the court, and a default judgment was taken against them. All that was left to be done was for the Justice Department lawyers to file the proposed judgment, including penalties and sanctions for the defendants' failure to appear.

Incredibly, by May 5 of this year Justice Department superiors ordered that the professional career lawyers on the case who had been pursuing the matter through two administrations now back off. They ordered the lawyers not to include in the final papers the affidavit of Bartle Bull. Bull was a civil rights activist in the South and later a member of Robert Kennedy's presidential election committee. He was also on the scene in Philadelphia as a certified poll watcher. He said in the affidavit "In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll. In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi, I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Nevertheless, on May 15, the Department reversed its earlier position while the judgment was still pending before the U. S. District Judge and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal against Malik Zulu Shabazz and Mr. Jackson.

For those of you not familiar with Mr. Shabazz, he was mentored by Khalid Abdul Muhammad of The Nation of Islam ("Black Muslims"). Muhammad's rhetoric was so vile that even Louis Farrakhan couldn't take it anymore. On Jews, Shabazz has this to say: "Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!" In response to an olive branch extended to him by a gay rights activist, Shabazz had this to say (I have left it in its original all capitals form so you can get a feel for this gentle poll-watcher): "LEAVE ME ALONE SICK LITTLE FAGGOT. THAT'S WHY WE HAD A STANDING ROOM ONLY 800 PLUS CROWD AT THE MASONIC TEMPLE LAST THURSDAY, MEETING ON HOW TO RUN DEVILS LIKE YOU OUTTA HERE . . . WE ARE BUILDING A BLACK POWER ARMY RIGHT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SINCE YOU LIKE PANTHER GEAR, (IN A FREAKY SICKO SADO MASOCHIST-SATANIC WAY), I WILL SPARE YOU A PAIR OF BLACK STEEL TOE BOOTS UP YOUR ASS. I FEAR YOU WILL ENJOY THAT. YOU WILL GET CRUSHED, LITTLE DEVIL, IN SELF-DEFENSE." Nice, huh? I guess Shabazz felt he needed to bring his civility to Philadelphia on election day. Side note: Shabazz is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

After Holder's new people dismissed against Shabazz and Jackson, he allowed the proceedings to go forward as to defendant King Samir Shabazz, but limited the penalty to requiring only that he not "display a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the city of Philadelphia until November 15, 2012." That'll teach him! He won't be free to scare people away from the polling precincts until nearly Christmas of 2012.

All of the hard work, proof and witness statements made literally at great risk to themselves have gone down the drain. The new day of Obama Justice has dawned. Eric Holder has proven that he will guide his department down the primrose path of racial preferences and tolerance for thuggish unlawful behavior as long as it is performed by those oppressed minorities of which he has so often spoken. Your exam question for the day is: "What would Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor have to say about the decision of the Justice Department?" DISCUSS.

Note: Thanks to John Keats for getting my blood stirred up, again, by pointing out the Washington Times article to me.

Additional note: I suffered some sort of major computer glitch which made my original post badly garbled. I know several of you posted responses which were deleted after I removed the original post. Please post again, I want to hear from all of you.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...