I visited the Kelly File last night on Fox News with Megyn Kelly. The segment provides an excellent summary of the IRS flip flopping and lies. Here is the video from Fox News Insider:
Liberal groups already enjoy a tremendous structural advantage over conservative groups in terms of foundation support, bricks and mortars institutions and a steady pipeline of youngsters eager to shape mankind to their own image. There’s another often overlooked advantage enjoyed by the left: big law firms donating thousands and thousands of hours to help leftist causes far outside of the American mainstream.
There is no counterpart donation of time and money for conservative causes. Big Law’s ideological “lawfare” completes the architecture for attacks on election integrity laws, springing free Al-Qaeda terrorists and even suing conservative new media pioneers like Andrew Breitbart.
Legal work donated to these causes is called pro bono representation. Once upon a time, pro bono representation was provided to those who could not afford a lawyer after finding themselves in dire straits. Imagine a widow with children being sued by a landlord in an eviction lawsuit. Law firms, acting out of a sense of charity, might donate time to the widow to help her avoid eviction.
In the case of Andrew Breitbart, however, that script is flipped. Lawyers for the monster Big Law firm Kirkland and Ellis are representing Shirley Sherrod against Andrew Breitbart’s widow, for free. After Andrew died, these lawyers substituted Suzy Breitbart in a defamation case brought against Andrew.
Unlike the poor widow of yesteryear, the person receiving the free legal representation is Shirley Sherrod. Remember her? Sherrod is the former Department of Agriculture official caught on camera saying she denied a white farmer the full measure of benefits she could have given him (before later describing a moment of redemption when she rejected a racialist approach to her job). Unlike the poor widow, a farming collective associated with Sherrod’s family was the beneficiary of a multi-million dollar windfall settlement from the very same Agriculture Department.
In the same settlement, Sherrod and her family even received $150,000 for pain and suffering in the racial discrimination case against the USDA even when she admitted on camera she briefly intended to engage in racial discrimination against a white farmer while employed by the same USDA.
The irony apparently wasn’t shameful enough for Sherrrod’s lawyers to decline her case against Andrew Breitbart.
So enter Kirkland & Ellis lawyers Thomas Yannucci and Michael D. Jones. Sherrod’s morally bankrupt litigation against a widow by Kirkland and Ellis lawyers (working for free) isn’t the only example of pro bono work at the firm. A glance at the Kirkland and Ellis pro bono portfolio reveals a stark degree of ideological homogeneity.
Katie Pavlich’s new book, Assault and Flattery (Threshold 2014), flips the script on the creaky old War on Women narrative of the left. Her book would be a welcome addition in campus gender studies programs, where it would do the most good in rebutting the industrial-size narrative about the oppressed role of women and how Democrats bring deliverance.
Naturally, nobody in any gender studies program will be adding Assault and Flattery to the lists of required reading for “Gender, Sexual Violence and Empire” or the “Harlots, Dandies and Bluestockings” classes this fall at Harvard. (Yes, weep aloud, as they really exist.) That’s too bad, because Pavlich’s book lays waste to the false narrative that the modern feminist movement, working hand in hand with the Democrat Party, does any good for women. Quite the opposite is true.
Pavlich provides example after example where the Obama administration has mistreated female federal employees, most obviously, choosing to pay them far less than male counterparts.
Not many books start with a warning. Assault and Flattery does:
Due to the vulgarity of many Democratic Leaders as well as the so-called women’s rights groups that defend them, this book contains language suitable for mature audiences only, or at least those with strong stomachs.
Pavlich doesn’t disappoint, taking on David Letterman’s jokes about statutory rape and Bill Maher’s demeaning characterizations of women — narratives surely absent from gender studies gripe sessions on campus. Pavlich particularly roughs up a left-wing Hollywood culture that will take a back seat to no one in treating women like objects.
But a chapter entitled “Barack Obama: the Most Anti-Woman President Ever” makes the book worth the read. She details the inside story of women enduring employment in the Obama administration. Not only are they paid less, they are treated badly. “I felt like a piece of meat,” Obama’s former communications director said in describing the atmosphere inside the White House. The book goes on to describe the harassment of women employees by Obama political appointees.
This narrative usually remains bottled up and ignored. Gender studies programs, ABC’s White House reporter Ann Compton and any outlet on the left ignore these inconvenient and messy narratives.
Republicans have played defense on immigration for so long that they’ve forgotten how to play offense. The waves of aliens, the dead children washing up on the banks of the Rio Grande, the thousands of free airline tickets for reunions with stateside relatives — all of these things are happening because left-wing control of the levers of power has been met by Republican ineptitude.
Shock and outrage at administration policies isn’t enough. The Republicans have provided no effective leadership in stopping the tsunami rolling north from Central America. But Republicans can control the issue, and the nation’s future, if they would lead.
The first step to leading is understanding what you are up against. This border crisis isn’t incompetence. It isn’t bungling.
It is a calculated effort to crash the immigration system and fundamentally transform the nation. It is an effort to accelerate demographic trends and forever alter the nation’s culture. Until the GOP comprehends the full measure of Obama’s purpose, the GOP will be trapped in a prevent defense, never moving past complaints about Obama’s incompetence.
To the Obama administration and open borders groups, the tidal wave across the border is not an accident, and it is not a crisis. It is not even limited to unaccompanied children.
There is a single simple cause behind the human tragedy at the border: Obama’s refusal to enforce the immigration laws. The steady flow became a tsunami after Obama implemented childhood amnesty (DACA) in 2012. This lawless immigration policy gave legal status to young illegal aliens by Obama edict.
But Obama’s lawless leniency went even further. The president publicly and proudly announced that he will not enforce other immigration laws. His presidential invitation spread like wildfire throughout Central and South America, and the lawless invasion grew worse.
If President Obama reversed these lawless policies, the border flood would stop. That’s precisely why he won’t reverse them. The border flood, the free airline tickets, the badgering of school districts that do not welcome the illegal aliens with open arms — all of these actions are calculated to revolutionize the demographics of the nation.
If the president reversed his lawless immigration policies, the cultural and demographic transformation of the nation would be incomplete. Texas might stay red for decades … unless.
Doubt it? The administration is doubling down and even intends to expand amnesty by edict further this fall. There has been no backlash sufficient to reverse the plan. It’s payback time for House Republicans refusing to pass the Senate’s amnesty bill.
Let’s visit the laws and lawyering that got us into this mess.
George Bush deserves some blame. The legal vehicle for the mass child migration is an amendment added by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.) to an anti-sex trafficking law in 2008. It forced the government to admit into the country any minors, other than Mexicans and Canadians, and reunite them with family or other guardians in the United States. President Bush signed the bill in 2008 that included Feinstein’s amendment.
Imagine if a white government official with the Alabama Department of Agriculture stood before a Tea Party crowd and said words to this effect:
The first time I was faced with having to help a black farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. But he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. [Laughter from Tea Party audience.] So many white farmers were having a hard time, and I was faced with having to help a black person. So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I took him to a black lawyer, one of his own kind, to take care of him.
Imagine if a white government official admitted on camera that he initially didn’t help a black farmer as much as he could have helped him, and that the official took the farmer to “one of his own kind to take care of him.” Imagine what would happen next.
We all know exactly what would happen. The New York Times, NAACP, establishment media, civil rights lawyers and community organizers would unleash a coordinated hurricane at the Alabama official. They would wreck his reputation and leave him lucky to retire in peace, unharmed. As for the Tea Party, it would endure weeks of scorn and racial accusations.
But what if the official included a story of redemption in his Tea Party speech? What if he said he came to understand race shouldn’t matter, but instead poverty should be the focus, not race? Would that redemptive statement provide the Alabama official any sanctuary from the hurricane?
Do I need to even ask?
But when the speaker is former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod, and her audience is the NAACP, reporting on events similar to these might get you sued for defamation. Just ask Andrew Breitbart. Sadly, you’ll have to ask his widow Suzy because Shirley Sherrod is now suing her. (See, “Vampires: Shirley Sherrod’s Lawyers Seek to Sue Widow of Andrew Breitbart.”)
Not content to enjoy any portion of a $13,000,000 settlement Sherrod’s husband Charles’ group earned in a lawsuit against the Agriculture Department for government racial discrimination against black farmers (including a $150,000 award for “pain and suffering”), Sherrod is still entangled in years-long defamation litigation with Andrew Breitbart’s widow and Larry O’Connor.
Now, Shirley Sherrod has served a subpoena on me, your author, to testify in a deposition in the litigation and turn over documents and emails between Andrew Brietbart and me. We’ll return to my subpoena in a moment.
In the meantime, savor Sherrod’s shameless irony: Plaintiff’s family receives money from a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture; plaintiff later admits on video being motivated by racially discriminatory intent while employed by very same Department of Agriculture and sues journalist who publishes the video.
Do the lawyers who took Sherrod’s case not recognize a laugh line when they see it?
Here are some other facts from the full Sherrod video. Sherrod’s tale is certainly one of redemption. But every redemption requires prior misbehavior or dark motives, and Sherrod says she once had, even but for a moment, a racialist approach to her life.
In a lesser reported portion of the famous video, Sherrod speaks of prayerfully seeking discernment about her future, ultimately deciding to commit to helping people. But it was a commitment with a twist. “When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people, and to black people only.”
Those who knew Andrew Breitbart knew how repugnant he considered such racial exclusivity.
Let’s hope that the federal government isn’t filled with many other employees who share Sherrod’s old (and unconstitutional) attitude about helping Americans based on skin color. Let’s hope they hold the views of the redeemed Sherrod, not the racialist Sherrod.
Back to my subpoena.
The final days of the Mississippi runoff for United States Senate has taken a turn to the bizarre. Leftist academics and their “journolist” friends in the media are warning that Mississippi is about to return to 1963, where vigilante racists lurk about trying to scare away blacks from the ballot box.
We’ve seen the scare tactics before. Usually the effort to stoke up a racially paranoid base swirls around voter ID laws. Now, it swirls around laws ensuring election transparency.
I am helping to manage a poll-observer program across Mississippi in Tuesday’s runoff election between challenger Chris McDaniel and incumbent Thad Cochran. Using the Mississippi election laws designed to bring transparency to the election process and to record any illegal behavior, trained observers will be watching the polls.
Listening to the New York Times, you would think Jim Crow was back. They’re feeding the same false narrative: the Tea Party supporters of Chris McDaniel are bucktooth racists that will break the law to stop minorities from raiding the Republican primary to help Thad Cochran. The election observer program by conservatives, the Times reports, “evokes memories of the civil rights struggles of the state’s past.”
Mississippi has total transparency in the conduct of elections. Observers are permitted to observe the process to ensure that Mississippi election laws are followed.
Central to Cochran’s survival strategy is an organized and open effort to get Democrats to raid the Republican primary. Mississippi law has a prohibition against voting in the Republican primary if you do not intend to support the nominee in November. The law is still on the books. A case which undermined the statute was thrown out and vacated by a federal appeals court. The closest thing there is questioning the law is an old attorney general’s opinion questioning the enforceability of the law.
The attorney general’s opinion, issued by a Democrat in 2003, doesn’t do what the left is claiming it does. For starters, it is simply an attorney general’s opinion. When I went to law school, we learned that such opinions are not binding authority. These days it seems that they are binding authority, as long as the left agrees with the outcome.
But the AG opinion cites eight reasons a voter may be challenged. Number 8 says “(g) That he is otherwise disqualified by law.” “Otherwise disqualified by law” certainly might mean they aren’t supposed to vote in the primary because they don’t qualify under Mississippi Code 23-15-575.
When I went to law school, we also learned about the canon of statutory interpretation that “courts must not construe statutes so as to nullify, void or render meaningless or superfluous.”
The chairs of the Democrat Party and Republican Party recognize what the academics apparently do not. Both are calling for Democrats not to raid the Republican runoff Tuesday. But that doesn’t matter to the partisans who don’t mind a bit of illegality if it helps them get what they want.
This has led Rick Hasen, the “Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science” at the recently accredited University of California at Irvine Law School, to publish a series of brazenly false headlines such as “Conservative ‘Election Observers’ in Mississippi May Be Meant to Intimidate Democratic Voters in Cochran-McDaniel Race.” (Link to Hasen’s webpage here.)
A lie. But no matter, he’s a professor. He must be right.
It must be wrong for courts to render laws superfluous, but ok for law professors.
I know some in the Republican party are trying to help illegal aliens stay in the United States, but this is getting ridiculous.
U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles said Tuesday that the 68-year-old Lexington County Sheriff James Metts faces 10 charges of taking bribes. He is also charged with wire fraud and conspiracy.
Court documents say Metts allowed friends to buy favors, accepting cash in return for agreeing to assist people who were in the country illegally and who were being detained.
The indictment detailed several phone calls between Metts and a former Lexington Town councilman, who was acting as a go-between for the owner of several Mexican restaurants. Metts accepted an envelope full of cash in exchange for keeping some of the restaurants’ employees from ending up in federal databases of immigrants who weren’t supposed to be in the U.S., according to the indictment.
Metts once pondered a run for the Republican Party nomination for South Carolina Governor.
The only significant information in a recent Drudge-linked story about James O’Keefe is that he receives death threats, including one involving gasoline, plastic tubes, and one of his orifices. Naturally, the author of this hit piece on O’Keefe, Mike Spies, exhibits no curiosity as to the status of the federal investigation about the “gass” bomb threat. Spies probably knows by now that when it comes to federal criminal investigations involving James O’Keefe, it’s a one-way street.
The rest of Spies’ story, published at the previously unheard of Vocativ.com, is a textbook example of how conservative figures are victimized by snarky web bloggers who know how to make the most sane conservative figures look like nuts. No wonder folks like Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh know better than to let them in.
The story uses selective anecdotes to paint O’Keefe as a self-absorbed quasi-paranoid fringe nut. Examples of courtesy, as when O’Keefe offered a free signed copy of his book to the author, are the acts of a narcissist.
A copy of his book rests on the table. Unprompted, he takes a pen and autographs the inside cover. As he hands it over, a slightly embarrassed smile spread across his face. I check the inscription. “Veritas!” it reads, the Latin term for truth.
So much for being a thoughtful host.
But Spies often has no sense of proportion or propriety. O’Keefe tells me he first met the blogger at an event at the Four Seasons Hotel. General David Petraeus and Ambassador John Bolton were speaking to the Gatestone Institute. Spies showed up to the event in a black t-shirt, filthy jeans and hipster shoes — at the Four Seasons. He had to talk his way past the doorman because of his attire. Classy guy.
Spies’ preference for dark things extended to the photography sessions at O’Keefe’s. Spies asked O’Keefe to turn out the lights. Spies wanted morose lighting that matched his eventual headline – “what’s eating James O’Keefe?” The story would paint O’Keefe as a troubled, self-absorbed loner, and Spies wanted photos to match. Photos included stand-alone captions like “The Machine is out to destroy me.”
Selectively edited photography wasn’t Spies’ only hit device. He even went after James’ fans – most of whom “appear to be over the age of 50” at one event. Spies took issue with James doing what every single television news program has done for decades, save for the internet part:
The raw footage is edited for dramatic effect and then released on the Internet, set to explode like a firecracker.
One of the complaints the left reflexively uses against O’Keefe is that he “selectively edits” his stories. That’s a lie, oft repeated. His Project Veritas meticulously releases the full unedited recordings of any sting.
Instead, it was Spies who selectively edited his interviews with O’Keefe, an ironic shortcoming certain to receive almost zero attention.
For example, when Spies mentioned James’ legal fights with disgraced former United States Attorney Jim Letten, he made no mention of the prosecutorial corruption of Letten and his office in a high-profile prosecution of New Orleans police officers. He didn’t mention O’Keefe’s confrontation with the disgraced Letten after the controversy erupted. Instead, Spies only published O’Keefe’s quip – about his plans to go skiing in Tahoe the day he was arrested.
Telling the whole story about the rank corruption inside the New Orleans office of the DOJ wouldn’t have served the purpose of the story.
Spies tries to paint O’Keefe as a man whose time has passed, who doesn’t have it anymore. He’s the Tom Cruise of journalism. Yet when pressed about this in the interviews, O’Keefe rattled off a long list of recent stings that successfully drove the narrative.
O’Keefe talked about the resignation of Congressman Jim Moran’s son after video showed him colluding with voter fraudsters in the 2012 presidential election. O’Keefe’s stings got inside the Obama presidential campaign and exposed more efforts to commit voter fraud there. Had a Republican campaign engaged in the same conduct, it would have led the network news for days. O’Keefe’s stings led to the retirement of the president of the Wisconsin Senate this year. He had the #2 selling book worldwide. This year he exposed how Wisconsin Representative James Sensenbrenner doesn’t even know what is in his own voting rights bill to give Eric Holder more power over state elections. And O’Keefe’s videos appear regularly as part of congressional hearings.
None of this made the hit piece.
I was on Fox and Friends this weekend discussing the latest Obama administration lawlessness with Tucker Carlson.
A catalog of government lawlessness is more discomforting to contemplate when the catalog is contemporary. We are all familiar with tales of mischief, corruption and abuse of power from other ages and in other places. We call it history. But the new book Obama’s Enforcer by Hans von Spakovsky and John Fund documents the rank lawlessness that has saturated Eric Holder’s Justice Department, and thus, the Obama presidency.
Von Spakovsky and Fund’s book releases June 10. It details the radical nest that the Justice Department has become. Their book echoes what I still hear from Justice Department employees across the Department still stuck working for a lawless radical attorney general: you simply cannot believe what is happening inside DOJ.
Eric Holder is Obama’s enforcer. The authors catalog Holder as an enforcer for a progressive gang spanning across all agencies of the federal government. Obama’s enforcer has successfully turned the power and prestige of the Justice Department into a radicalized agency for fundamental change. Holder is the enforcer that has used his power to turn America away from post-racial possibilities and toward race-obsessed legal policies. According to the authors, Holder is the single most important change agent inside the single most important change agency.
The book also covers territory never before touched – namely, why is Holder so radicalized?
I’ve worked at the Justice Department, written a New York Times bestseller about the DOJ, and never discovered what the authors reveal: how Holder’s wife played a central role in turning Holder into a racialist radical.
The authors secured an interview with one of Holder’s old buddies – Craig Donsanto. Donsanto was a lawyer at the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. Donsanto worked with Holder early in Holder’s DOJ career and spent many long days travelling with Holder on DOJ business. What Donsanto shares might explain Holder’s radicalism about race, most famously on display when he described “my people” before a committee of Congress.
Holder “changed” after his marriage, says Donsanto. Holder himself admitted that his wife has an “edge” that he doesn’t have because he “never saw the reality of racism or felt the insecurity that comes with it.”
To think that a racialist African-American Lady Macbeth might have had her husband “screw” his “courage to the sticking place” and use the Justice Department to push a radical racialized progressive agenda would be a terrible sort of modern American tragedy.
So who is Sharon Malone? For starters, she owns a building all too happy to house an abortion clinic run by an indicted abortionist. But like her husband’s Justice Department, race is Malone’s primary (and angry) focus. Malone’s sister was one of the first to enroll at the University of Alabama, something Holder is keen to remind people about even 51 years later. From the book:
Sharon Malone is a doctor in Washington who is very involved with organizations like the Coalition of 100 Black Women and makes no secret of her anger at the wrongs her family and other black Americans suffered, “to which the American government was, I wouldn’t say complicit, but at least indifferent.”
Malone must not have learned at Harvard that the “American government” sunk the treasure of two generations to free black Americans, and sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of men working for the American government. But Obama’s Enforcer doesn’t stop at documenting Malone’s bitterness about race. She’s also bitter toward America:
Malone “drew a direct line from the sins of America’s racial past to the abuses of Guantanamo Bay detention center.”
Reading this part of Obama’s Enforcer, it isn’t hard to understand why Holder has upended civil rights law in the name of race, while at the same time supporting whatever is necessary to shut down Gitmo. In his family, the two are related.