Archive for July 7th, 2010

Justice Official Accused of Saying: No More Cases Against Blacks

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

Discrimination comes in many forms. The latest is discrimination against whites.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights today suggested it is expanding its review of claims that the Department of Justice has implemented a ban on prosecuting defendants who are black.

The comments came at a hearing in Washington at which commission members asked witness J. Christian Adams to provide the names of other Department of Justice attorneys who might shed further light on his allegation that the DOJ is afflicted by a “culture of hostility” toward prosecuting black perpetrators of voting rights violations against white victims.

Commissioner Gail Heriot asked Adams to provide a “list of attorneys in the department who could corroborate” his testimony, indicating that the commission plans to expand its investigation of racial bias in the Department of Justice.

Also, Adams revealed that some DOJ staffers were disciplined for harassing other departmental attorneys because they held “evangelical religious views” and worked on a case brought against a black political activist in Mississippi.

Adams, until recently a top trial attorney in the voting section of the DOJ, testified that staffers throughout the department have subscribed for years to the notion that the DOJ’s primary responsibility is to protect the voting rights of minority voters, not whites.

He added that recent Obama administration DOJ appointees have reinforced this notion by making such racial discrimination a formal departmental policy.

According to the former DOJ attorney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at a policy meeting that “the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities.”

Instead, the department will focus on “traditional” civil rights cases, was the suggestion.

Adams testified that Fernandez also said the department “has no interest in enforcing” the section of the Motor Voter law that requires local jurisdictions to purge the voting rolls of ineligible voters, even deceased voters, because “it has nothing to do with increasing turnout.”

Commissioner Peter Kirsanow asked Adams “to what extent” the department believes equal treatment before the law applies to all voters.

“That’s the problem,” replied Adams. “They assume Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act doesn’t apply to white voters.”

Adams pointed out that over the past 45 years, the department has brought hundreds of cases against whites violating the rights of ethnic minority voters, but only two cases against blacks violating the rights of whites.

Commissioner Ashley Taylor observed, “the division’s policy can be found in the cases it brings.”

Adams said the DOJ’s attitude toward racial neutrality will be demonstrated in mid-July when the department has to choose a course of action in the next phase of a case against black political leader Ike Brown of Knox City, Miss. “If they don’t object to the submission, they will be [saying] that section 5 does not apply to white victims.”

Adams resigned from the department after he was ordered by his superiors to drop a case prosecutors already had won – the notorious New Black Panther Party intimidation of voters in a majority black precinct in urban Philadelphia on Election Day in 2008.

Amateur videographers had caught New Black Panther party activists on video wielding a baton, intimidating the elderly black man serving as the Republican poll watcher, and calling for the murder of white babies in their cribs.

One of the four New Black Panther Party members charged in the case is also an elected Democrat holding a local office.

When they were ordered to drop the case, Adams and the team of DOJ lawyers had already won the case by default because the new Black Panthers declined to defend themselves in court. At that point in the proceedings, the DOJ team was simply waiting for the judge to assign penalties against the New Black Panthers.

Adams claimed the decision to drop the case was made by Obama political appointees, and that the decision to drop a case that was already won was “unprecedented.”

Original Link.

Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

In a move completely against the will of the people, Obama has ordered the Justice Department to file suit against the Arizona immigration law.
November can’t get here soon enough.

Accusing Arizona of trying to “second guess” the federal government, the Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s immigration policy — claiming the “invalid” law interferes with federal immigration responsibilities and “must be struck down.”

The suit names the state of Arizona as well as Gov. Jan Brewer as defendants. In it, the Justice Department claims the federal government has “preeminent authority” on immigration enforcement and that the Arizona law “disrupts” that balance. It urges the U.S. District Court in Arizona to “preliminarily and permanently” prohibit the state from enforcing the law, which is scheduled to go into effect at the end of the month.

“Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a written statement. “But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country’s safety.”

Holder also warned of “a patchwork of state laws” that “will only create more problems than it solves.”

Brewer responded by accusing the Obama administration of a “massive waste of taxpayer funds.”

“It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels,” she said in a written statement. “Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice.”

She went on to point out “the irony” of suing Arizona for its immigration enforcement law but ignoring cities and other local governments whose “patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.”

The Justice Department’s lawsuit argues the state law focuses only on getting rid of illegal immigrants and “ignores” other immigration objectives.

“The United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government’s immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy,” the suit says. “A policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance.”

Click here to read the lawsuit.

Brewer wasn’t the only Arizona leader slamming the Obama administration.

“This is the wrong direction to go,” Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., said in a statement, calling on the administration to devote its resources to border security.

And in Washington, 20 House Republicans wrote a letter to Holder in protest of the decision. Republican Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl released a joint statement calling the suit “premature.”

“The Obama administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility,” the senators said.

Original Link.

“Creeping Towards Dictatorship” by Todd Strandberg

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

In 1993, I was at a prophecy conference in Tampa, Florida, listening to an endless parade of speakers talking about how the newly elected Bill Clinton was going to enslave America. The speakers had a mountain of evidence, but they lacked one critical factor. They failed to include a practical scheme the Clinton people might have to overcome our Constitutional rights.

I’ve heard about secret plans for tyranny since I was a youngster. Some people spend all their lives warning about the Illuminati, Bilderbergs and the Trilateralists. These One World organizations may influence policy makers, but they don’t have any power to dictate it. If they did, we would have all been enslaved decades ago.

For about 20 years I’ve been refuting this inaccuracy, saying that the conspiracy theorists are full of hot air. I believe there is now an immediate threat of autocratic rule taking over our nation. I’ve always believed that there was a general effort to erode our civil rights. Up until now it has been a very gradual process. In the past few years, the attacks by the enemy have become continuous.

One of the biggest mistakes we can make is to focus on a personality, where we are endlessly trying to play pin-the- tail-on-the-Antichrist. The problem with looking for the next Adolf Hitler is that he can be anyone and come from anywhere. Our true focus should be on the process. As time goes by, I’m seeing less difference between the Democrats and Republicans. I blame the George W. Bush administration for moving America in the wrong direction just about as much as I do the current Obama Presidency.

I point to Bush’s ‘Patriot Act’ as one of the clearest indications that we are creeping towards dictatorship. The Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies’ ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. Rather than being allowed to eventually expire, the ‘Patriot Act’ continues to evolve.

James Madison, while a United States Congressman, said, “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” Madison’s warning might explain why every time another Arab terrorist tries to cause mayhem, another chunk of my civil rights is taken away.

The key reason I think the danger of tyranny is so great is the level of apathy one finds today. The huge Health Care bill was passed in May, and two months later you hardly hear anything about it. Just this past week, a bill was introduced to give President Obama an internet kill switch. Few people bother to ask if such attempted Federal control over the Internet is a threat to free speech.

Milton Mayer wrote the book, “They Thought They Were Free.” It was based on interviews he had with Germans still living after World War II who had been members of the Nazi Party. In it Mayer detailed how easy it is for people to live in a dictatorship and not even know it.

“As we know Nazism, it was a naked, total tyranny which degraded its adherents and enslaved its opponents and adherents alike; terrorism and terror in daily life, private and public; brute personal and mob injustice at every level of association. These nine ordinary Germans [who lived in Nazi Germany] knew it otherwise.”

“An autocracy? [they say] Yes, of course . . . But a tyranny, as you Americans use the term? Nonsense.”

German Church leader Martin Niemöller found out the hard way why we should never trust leaders with our freedom. After he was arrested in 1937, his former cell mate, Leo Stein, related his story to The National Jewish Monthly. Stein reports that having asked Niemöller why he ever supported the Nazi Party, Niemöller replied:

“I find myself wondering about that too. I wonder about it as much as I regret it. Still, it is true that Hitler betrayed me. I had an audience with him, as a representative of the Protestant Church, shortly before he became Chancellor, in 1932. Hitler promised me on his word of honor, to protect the Church, and not to issue any anti-Church laws. He also agreed not to allow pogroms against the Jews, assuring me as follows: ‘There will be restrictions against the Jews, but there will be no ghettos, no pogroms, in Germany.’”
(a b Stein, Leo (May 1941). “NIEMOELLER speaks! The National Jewish Monthly. pp. 284–5, 301–2.)

I am greatly concerned about how our nation’s weak financial health could affect our civil liberties. If we should slip into a depression, the one-world folks will have a free hand to take scissors to the constitution.

I’d rather be raptured from a free nation, but I know we shouldn’t be too hopeful about the world state as we approach the door step of the tribulation hour. All we can do is contend for liberty right to the very end.

— Todd

Original Link.