Posts

Political de-prosecution

Remember all that hullabaloo about the politicization of the Bush Department of Justice?

Have a taste of Hope and Change!

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident – which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube – had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as “the most blatant form of voter intimidation” that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

With all due apologies to the Who, it sounds like a case of “come meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” at a bare minimum.  The worst part about this story is that the career lawyers had already secured a default verdict against the three miscreants — members of the “New Black Panther Party.”  Recognized as a “black separatist” organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center, this group is sufficiently anti-social that the original Black Panther party consider the group illegitimate and insist “there is no new Black Panther Party?”

Now, why would the Department of Justice, under the steady hand of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has claimed great respect and admiration for the career lawyers of the DOJ, have the go out and literally “unwin” a case?  This was not a marginal case nor was it controversial — in the words of Bartle Bull, long time civil rights activist and former aide to Bobby Kennedy, who submitted an affidavit in this matter:

In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll,” he declared. “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.

In other words, even the Klukkers weren’t this brazen.

With a win in hand, the DOJ inexplicably let the three off the hook, with the greatest sanction remaining an order against one of the men not to be seen brandishing a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place in the future… or, at least not until until Nov. 15, 2012.  At least he’ll have to leave the billy-club home next Presidential election — thank goodness for small mercies.

Coward- Update- Congressman Cummings Responds

AG Eric Holder speaking to the employees of the Justice Department yesterday called America a nation of “cowards”. I had t listen to this a couple times to actually figure what he was talking about. Could he be talking about a refusal to discuss race relations openly? Surely not that.

Since Obama’s run for the Presidency it is just about all the Democrats for sure and perhaps a majority of the population in general, have been talking about. What’s stunning is the remainder of his remarks where, among other things, he says Americans retreat into the cocoon of our like minded and presumably racially segregated suburbs and communities. Please take the poll.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MWMlFQbDMo

Please read Powerline’s take on this.

Attorney General Holder has called America “a nation of cowards” when it comes to “things racial.” According to Holder, “average Americans” are afraid to “talk enough with each other about race.”

By using the word “cowards,” Holder has gotten himself some attention, at least for today. That’s ironic because his long-winded speech is 99 percent content free.

To add to the irony, in the one place where Holder introduces a little content, he demonstrates that he has no interest in genuine dialogue, and reveals himself to be a “coward” on “things racial.”

Update: Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) addresses the Holder comments this morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. He took issue with the Holder comments in so much as they don’t describe the America today … the younger generations. But the kicker comes half way in when Joe asks Cummings whether the government should step in to force us to …. ummm … go to church together? I’m not sure why Joe used the church analogy. At least Cummings saw the folly.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNIrAGn0yBE

2nd Amendment: “Reasonable Restrictions Are Still Possible”

Arghhhhh! Eric Holder bothers me and should all 2nd amendment advocates. He seems to me to be a now reluctant defender of an individual’s right to own firearms … forced there only by the SCOTUS District of Columbia v. Heller decision. Even in this case his position was well documented … the 2nd Amendment, he believed, referred only to a state’s collective right to form a militia.

I am not comforted by his testimony today when question by Dr Tom Coburn. You have to listen closely (audio is stepped on by Shep Smith) but he clearly states that position as accepted fact until Heller. I am not ware it was accepted by anyone other than gun control advocates. Based on what I heard … he is a man who will push Heller to the limits.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUdYWEXq-2M

If you would like the longer cleaner version you can find it here at C-Span … the key portion begins at 53:40

The only guns he will “reasonably restrict” will be those belonging the law abiding citizens. The criminals don’t care. He scares me and should all law abiding citizens. Or am I overreacting?

For more news on Holder and the 2nd Amendment … go to Instapundit here … and then follow every day.

Upcoming Senate confirmation hearings

Many of the Obama administration appointments do require Senate review. Even though Democrats will have a strong majority in the Senate beginning in January, should Republicans roll over on every nomination, or ask the nominee pertinent questions concerning past statements and policies?

Read more