Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    July 2010
    S M T W T F S
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728293031
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Archive for July, 2010

Madness … chilling madness

Posted by Richard on July 8, 2010

Mohammed Abu Mustafa, a Palestinian infant from Gaza, was just four and a half months old and facing death in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer, Israel. He had a genetic immune system deficiency. According to Haaretz, his mother Raida had experienced this heartbreaking situation before:

"I had two daughters in Gaza," she continued, her black eyes shimmering. "Both died because of immune deficiency. In Gaza I was told all the time that there is no treatment for this and that he is doomed to die. The problem now is how to pay for the [bone marrow] transplant. There is no funding." 

Shlomi Eldar, a reporter for Israel's Channel 10 News, went to the hospital to report little Mohammed's story. He ended up spending eight months filming the family, creating a full-length documentary, Precious Life, that's set to premier this week at the Jerusalem Film Festival. It's already won effusive praise. 

But first, Mohammed's life was in the balance and depended on a marrow transplant. Eldar reluctantly went to the hospital to do a story about the infant, convinced that nothing good would come of it: 

"I got to her after all the attempts to find a donation for the transplant had failed," he relates. "I understood that I was the baby's last hope, but I didn't give it much of a chance. At the time, Qassam rockets falling on Sderot opened every newscast. In that situation, I didn't believe that anyone would be willing to give a shekel for a Palestinian infant."

He was wrong. Hours after the news item about Mohammed was broadcast, the hospital switchboard was jammed with callers. An Israeli Jew whose son died during his military service donated $55,000, and for the first time the Abu Mustafa family began to feel hopeful. Only then did Eldar grasp the full dramatic potential of the story.

Thanks to the generous donations of countless Israeli Jews, Mohammed Abu Mustafa's life was saved. And despite his editor's misgivings, Shlomi Eldar decided that the story should be followed, leading to the documentary film.

Based on the lengthy interview with him by Haaretz, it's clear that Eldar is a compassionate, liberal (in the best sense of the word) person who feels deeply for the suffering of the people of Gaza, who was conflicted about Israel's conflict with Hamas, and who covered the conflict in a way sympathetic to the suffering of the residents of Gaza. But that's not the point of this post.

No, the point of this post is an exchange Eldar had with Raina Abu Mustafa, little Mohammed's mother, that almost led him to abandon the film project (emphasis added): 

From an innocent conversation about religious holidays, Raida Abu Mustafa launched into a painful monologue about the culture of the shahids – the martyrs – and admitted, during the complex transplant process, that she would like to see her son perpetrate a suicide bombing attack in Jerusalem.

She also explained to Eldar exactly what she had in mind. "For us, death is a natural thing. We are not frightened of death. From the smallest infant, even smaller than Mohammed, to the oldest person, we will all sacrifice ourselves for the sake of Jerusalem. We feel we have the right to it. You're free to be angry, so be angry."

And Eldar was angry. "Then why are you fighting to save your son's life, if you say that death is a usual thing for your people?" he lashes out in one of the most dramatic moments in the film.

"It is a regular thing," she smiles at him. "Life is not precious. Life is precious, but not for us. For us, life is nothing, not worth a thing. That is why we have so many suicide bombers. They are not afraid of death. None of us, not even the children, are afraid of death. It is natural for us. After Mohammed gets well, I will certainly want him to be a shahid. If it's for Jerusalem, then there's no problem. For you it is hard, I know; with us, there are cries of rejoicing and happiness when someone falls as a shahid. For us a shahid is a tremendous thing."

That was enough to drain Eldar's motivation and dissolve all the compassion he had felt for Raida and Mohammed.

… 

Madness. Disturbing, chilling madness. 

How do you coexist with people who not only despise your mere existence, but don't value their own? Or even their children's? How do you coexist with people who will rear their son to perpetrate a suicide attack on the very people whose donations made his survival possible?

It cannot be done.

If your eyes fill with tears upon reading this — you're not alone.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Let’s change the name from NASA to NEIA

Posted by Richard on July 7, 2010

You can't make up stuff like this — unless maybe you're Scrappleface or Iowahawk. And even then, some people would consider it pretty outlandish and over the top even for satire. I believe Power Line's Paul Mirengoff first broke this story on Sunday, when few of us were reading blogs (emphasis added):

In the video below, Charles Bolden, head of NASA, tells Al Jazeera that the "foremost" task President Obama has given him is "to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." Thus, NASA's primary mission is no longer to enhance American science and engineering or to explore space, but to boost the self-esteem of "predominantly Muslim nations."

Exploring space didn't even make the top three things Obama wants Bolden to accomplish. The other two are "re-inspire children to want to get into science and math" and "expand our international relationships,"

Yesterday, Byron York added more details (emphasis added):

In the same interview, Bolden also said the United States, which first sent men to the moon in 1969, is no longer capable of reaching beyond low earth orbit without help from other nations.

Bolden made the statements during a recent trip to the Middle East. …

Bolden’s trip included a June 15 speech at the American University in Cairo.  In that speech, he said in the past NASA worked mostly with countries that are capable of space exploration.  But that, too, has changed in light of Obama’s Cairo initiative.  “He asked NASA to change…by reaching out to ‘non-traditional’ partners and strengthening our cooperation in the Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia and in particular in Muslim-majority nations,” Bolden said.  “NASA has embraced this charge.”

“NASA is not only a space exploration agency,” Bolden concluded, “but also an earth improvement agency.”

Well, that dovetails with their emphasis in recent years of promoting bogus anthropogenic global warming information. OK, let's make it official. Since their top objectives no longer include anything to do with aeronautics and space, it's time to take "Aeronautics and Space" out of the name. Rename it the National Earth Improvement Agency.

Today, Daniel Pipes offered four spot-on observations about this nonsense (emphasis added):

First, it is inordinately patronizing for Americans to make Muslims “feel good” about their medieval contributions to science. This will lead to more resentment than gratitude.

Second, Muslims at present do lag in the sciences and the way to fix this is not condescension from NASA but some deep Muslim introspection. Put differently, accomplished scientists of Muslim origin — including NASA’s Farouk El-Baz, who is of Egyptian origins — do exist. The problem lies in societies, and include everything from insufficient resources to poor education to the ravages of Islamism.

Third, polls indicate that Obama’s effort to win Muslim public opinion has been a failure, with his popularity in majority-Muslim countries hardly better than George W. Bush’s. Why continue with these farcical and failed attempts to win good will?

Finally, it’s a perversion of American scientific investment to distort a space agency into a feel-good tool of soft diplomacy. Just as soldiers are meant to fight, not carry out social programs, so scientists must work to expand the frontiers of knowledge, not to make select people “feel good.”

Notice that the new mission of NASA — I mean NEIA — isn't to help the people in Muslim nations better themselves and achieve more competence in science, math, and engineering. It's just to make them feel good, while leaving their actual circumstances unchanged.

I'll give the President this: he's consistent. Domestically, the Obama agenda is not to increase opportunity and encourage people on society's lower rungs to climb up, but to confiscate wealth and drag those at the top of the ladder down. Likewise, internationally, the agenda is not to encourage third-world nations to emulate our success and lift themselves up, but to destroy America's wealth, deny American exceptionalism, and drag the US down. Like all socialists before him, he neither understands nor values wealth production or its producers. So his policies, ostensibly aimed at a more equal distribution of wealth and power, inevitably work toward equally distributing poverty and helplessness.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Massive tax hikes are coming

Posted by Richard on July 6, 2010

Administration spokespeople and their shills in the MSM are starting to whine that businesses are to blame for the failure of a trillion dollars in stimulus spending to actually stimulate the economy. Businesses aren't expanding or hiring or ramping up production like they should, the argument goes. Well, the reason they aren't is because they're scared!

Given the current climate in Washington, business owners fear what new regulatory burdens will be imposed on them next. And they know that on January 1, they're going to get socked with the first wave of massive tax increases. Would you invest your money to expand your business and hire new people when you don't know what new barriers and hurdles you face, and you do know you're going to pay much higher taxes in the future? No, you wouldn't. You'd hunker down and adopt a defensive posture. Which is just what American businesses are doing.

Most small businesses (the backbone of the economy and the source of most employment) are taxed at the top personal income tax rates. And those, among other taxes, are set to go up significantly when the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year. Americans for Tax Reform has the gory details (emphasis in original): 

Personal income tax rates will rise.  The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).  The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.  All the rates in between will also rise.  Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.  The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

– The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
– The 25% bracket rises to 28%
– The 28% bracket rises to 31%
– The 33% bracket rises to 36%
– The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family.  The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.  The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.  The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.  The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax.   This year, there is no death tax.  For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors.   The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.  The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.  These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

And that's just the first of three waves of tax increases that we face next year. Go to ATR to see details of the other two waves, which may be even worse. 

If the President really wants to revive the economy, he should declare his support for extending the Bush tax cuts in their entirety. And he should propose a moratorium on major new business regulations, backed with a promise to veto any bill enacting such regulations. 

But I doubt that he'll do either of those things. Because I doubt that reviving the economy is really his goal.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The case for nullification and the zombie arguments against it

Posted by Richard on July 6, 2010

Tom Woods, whose latest book is Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, recently sat down for an interview with a zombie. The zombie articulated the standard arguments against nullification and any mention of so-called "states' rights" (actually, powers reserved to the states or the people by the 10th Amendment). Woods countered them rather effectively, in my opinion.

But it's hard to win an argument with a zombie. Especially if the subject of brains comes up. Enjoy this amusing and educational eight-minute "Interview with a Zombie." 


[YouTube link]

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Happy Independence Day!

Posted by Richard on July 4, 2010

 Old Glory

Perhaps the finest words ever penned by man, from the document that changed the world for the better like no other before or since:  

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Go read "The Americans Who Risked Everything," a wonderful speech by Rush Limbaugh, Jr. (father of talkmeister Rush Limbaugh III) about the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Here's an excerpt:

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half – 24 – were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.

With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century.

Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately."

Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone."

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.

They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.

It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law.

"The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost.

"If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens."

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.

If you don't have a copy of the Declaration handy, you can find the entire text here. Take the time this Independence Day to read it. Then raise a glass in a toast to Liberty!
 

John Trumbull's "Declaration of Independence"

John Trumbull's "Declaration of Independence"
(from ushistory.org)

The painting features the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence — John Adams, Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson (presenting the document), and Benjamin Franklin — standing before John Hancock, the President of the Continental Congress. The painting includes portraits of 42 of the 56 signers and 5 other patriots. The artist sketched the individuals and the room from life.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

I wish the buck was still silver

Posted by Richard on July 3, 2010

For your Independence Day weekend pleasure, here's a fine old (1983) Merle Haggard performance. Damn, they don't get much better than Merle Haggard. Enjoy!


[YouTube link]

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Defending the rich

Posted by Richard on July 3, 2010

On the way home Thursday, I caught the tail end of Hugh Hewitt's interview of Ziad K. Abdelnour, President and CEO of Blackhawk Partners, a venture capital firm. I was impressed and made a note to look up the post by Abdelnour that they were discussing. Tonight, I finally got around to it. If you're only going to read one thing on the Internet this weekend, I urge you to read "Why we need the rich: A message to Americans – and our leaders in Washington DC – on wealth creation by a wealth creator." It begins thus:

It has an often repeated axiom that a person can learn a whole lot about a society by how it treats its poor. But just as much can be learned by looking at how that society treats its rich. Indeed, the economic future of the poor – and our nation – will be determined in the coming decades by how we treat the people in this country who create great wealth. It will be determined by our understanding of the so-called rich. And our ability to protect this minority. 

Please, please, please go read the whole thing. But if you won't, at least think about this: 

Socialist regimes try to guarantee the value of things rather than the ownership of them. Thus socialism tends to destroy the value, which depends on dedicated ownership. In the United States, on the other hand, the government normally guarantees only the right to property, not the worth of it. The belief that wealth consists not in ideas, attitudes, moral codes, and mental disciplines but in definable and static things that can be seized and redistributed is the materialist superstition.

It stultified the works of Marx and other prophets of violence and envy. It betrays every person who seeks to redistribute wealth by coercion. It balks every socialist revolutionary who imagines that by seizing the so-called means of production he can capture the crucial capital of an economy. It baffles nearly all conglomerateurs, who believe they can safely enter new industries by buying rather than by learning them. Capitalist means of production are not land, labor, or capital but minds and hearts.

The wealth of America isn't an inventory of goods; it's an organic, living entity, a fragile, pulsing fabric of ideas, expectations, loyalties, moral commitments, visions, and people. To vivisect it for redistribution would eventually kill it.

I'm reminded of Francisco D'Anconia's "Money Speech" from Atlas Shrugged. You should really read that, too. Please!

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The deeming has resumed

Posted by Richard on July 2, 2010

Only 12% of likely voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Lopsided majorities want the deficit drastically reduced (82%), but also think the country is already overtaxed (66%) and blame politicians' unwillingness to cut spending (83%) for the deficit. And the Congressional Budget Office has just released a grim long-term outlook (PDF) predicting things are going to get much worse.

In this climate, Congressional Socialist Democrats, already facing a tough election year, are reluctant to have to defend yet another monstrously bloated budget with yet another trillion-plus-dollar deficit. So, what to do? As Connie Hair reports, they've decided "we don't need no stinkin' budget" and have instead resurrected a sleazy strategy they were considering during the health care takeover debate: 

Last night, as part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental bill, House Democrats attached a document that "deemed as passed" a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the "deeming" document allows Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the pesky constraints of a budget.

The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against deeming the faux budget resolution passed.

Never before — since the creation of the Congressional budget process — has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money.

House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) warned this was the green light for Democrats to continue their out-of-control spending virtually unchecked.

"Facing a record deficit and a tidal wave of debt, House Democrats decided it was politically inconvenient to put forward a budget and account for their fiscal recklessness. With no priorities and no restraints, the spending, taxing, and borrowing will continue unchecked for the coming fiscal year," Ryan said. "The so-called ‘budget enforcement resolution' enforces no budget, but instead provides a green light for the Appropriators to continue spending, exacerbating our looming fiscal crisis."

The Socialist Democrats and their media mouthpieces call it a "continuing budget resolution" so people will think this is no different than the continuing resolutions passed in the past when the end of the fiscal year approached and one or more of the funding bills used to enact the budget had not yet been agreed on. But as the Republicans pointed out, this "deeming" meets none of the Congressional Budget Act criteria for a budget resolution. 

The only criteria the Socialist Democrats' "deeming" meets are the criteria for a fraud and charade. 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

First woman president

Posted by Richard on July 1, 2010

Remember when Toni Morrison declared that Bill Clinton was our first black president? Well, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker does. And she's now upped the ante and declared Barack Obama our first female president. Really.

If I were Hillary Clinton and saw that column, I'd throw up.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Jane Norton’s sleazy smear of Ken Buck

Posted by Richard on July 1, 2010

There's lots of interest in the Colorado Senate race these days. All the pundits' eyebrows were raised by Bill Clinton's endorsement of Democratic challenger Andrew Romanoff over the establishment candidate, appointed Sen. Michael Bennet. I guess now we know that when the Obama administration tried to bribe Romanoff into dropping his challenge, they didn't use Clinton as an emissary like they did when they tried to bribe Sestak in Pennsylvania.

But I'm more interested in the Republican race. Establishment candidate Jane Norton once had about a 25-point lead over challenger Ken Buck, but the latest RealClearPolitics average has Buck up by 7. So recently, a desperate Norton began airing a scurrilous attack ad, long on weasel words and short on accuracy, challenging Buck's ethics record. 

The ad is about the late-1990s prosecution (I'd call it persecution) of Gregory and Leonid Golyansky, two hard-working Russian immigrants who own a pawn shop, for alleged firearms law violations. It followed closely on the heels of a convenient and one-sided 6/24 Denver Post story about the case. 

This was during the Clinton years when the BATF was engaged in a concerted nationwide campaign to put gun dealers out of business (and in fact cut the number in half). My good friend David is a friend of Greg Golyansky, and I remember he kept our little Saturday breakfast club informed about the sordid tale, which dragged on for years. As I recall, there was much chicanery by BATF and Justice, including false testimony and arranging for approval of background checks that should never have been approved in order to try to set up the Golyanskys. Maybe David, who checks in here from time to time, will fill in some details. 

I know that after several years of repeated BATF sting operations, a 37-count felony indictment, and the eventual ill-advised prosecution, Greg Golyansky cut his losses (over half a million dollars in legal expenses) and pled guilty to a single trivial misdemeanor paperwork violation, and was sentenced to one day of probation. The cases against the other defendants were dismissed. 

Ari Armstrong has a good post about this, in which he says:

Senate hopeful Jane Norton’s vicious attacks on GOP rival Ken Buck regarding Buck’s service in the U.S. Attorney’s office may deeply hurt Norton’s campaign, as I have already indicated. The problem is that Norton is attacking Buck for standing up against a political railroading in a gun case.

He also has a transcript of the David Kopel's comments about the case on Colorado Inside Out (video here). Here's a portion that summarizes the whole situation well (emphasis added): 

Greg was a pawn dealer. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms brought a case against him. The U.S. Attorney office declined to prosecute. Henry Solano, the Clinton-appointed United States Attorney, agreed with that, said there’s nothing here. Indeed, the only witness against him (Golyansky) was a mentally ill homeless drug addict with severe credibility problems.

And then Tom Strickland comes in on the theory that “I’m going to be the big tough U.S. Attorney and prosecute gun cases.” And he takes a case that not one single career attorney in the United States Attorney’s office in Colorado was willing to prosecute, so he brings in two of his little hand-picked minions who came in with him to bring felony charges against three people.

It was an outrageous abuse of power.

Now Ken Buck violated the protocol by talking about it outside the office. And I agree that was a violation of the U.S. Attorney’s protocol.

But when you say, when is a guy going to make a mistake, I like a guy who makes a mistake on behalf of someone who was being unfairly, unjustly, and politically persecuted.

And then for Jane Norton to turn around and say this is some terrible issue against Ken Buck — well, it just reminds me that Jane Norton’s husband was the guy who before Strickland came into office, probably had the worst record in Colorado history of being an abusive, out-of-control, way over the line, United States Attorney, Mike Norton.

I'm 100% with Dave and Ari. The airing of this issue and Norton's sleazy attempt to smear Buck make me likely to send a contribution to Ken Buck for Senate. I've been a registered Libertarian since the mid-80s, but I'm tempted to switch to Republican (temporarily) just to vote for Buck and against Norton. 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

Protecting the Black Panthers

Posted by Richard on July 1, 2010

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is investigating the Justice Department's dismissal of Voting Rights Act violation charges against the New Black Panthers — a dismissal that was ordered after the career attorneys at the DOJ Civil Rights Division's Voting Rights Section had already won. One of those career attorneys, J. Christian Adams, recently resigned and went public (emphasis added):

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

… 

The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let's all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal. 

Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a successful effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt. 

Read the whole thing. And if you wonder about Adams' claims about the evidence and testimony, you might want to look into it. Start by reading the affidavit of Bartle Bull (PDF), an attorney poll observer at the precinct in question. It's only three pages, and well worth your time. Mr. Bull helped secure the voting rights of blacks in Mississippi in the 1960s and worked on the Bobby Kennedy and Jimmy Carter campaigns — not exactly a right-wing bigot.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »