Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rule of Law

Monthly Archives: December 2011

The United States Navy has a history of honoring American heroes, and revered places in American history.  Broad consensus for these choices is also a long tradition.  Hence we have the USS Ronald Reagan, the USS George Washington, and the USS John F. Kennedy.  We also have the destroyer USS The Sullivans named for the sweeping sacrifice of one American family.  Honor, victory and sacrifice also led to ships such as the USS Guadalcanal.  Scores more are named after Medal of Honor recipients, military leaders, and distinguished Americans from various walks of life.

This long honorable tradition has recently been trashed by the decision of Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus to christen a new APD (Transport Dock Ship) the USS John P. Murtha.  John Murtha was a former Marine who late in life saw fit to trash Marines in the most incendiary of ways.

Murtha, who missed going to jail by the skin of his teeth in the Abscam scandal of 1980, is despised by the military community for, among other things, accusing US Marines involved in an incident in Iraq of “…[killing] innocent civilians in cold blood…in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”

Murtha’s venom toward the enlisted Marines later proved false, as Michelle Malkin notes.

There could be no greater insult to the US military than to name a fighting vessel after Murtha. Even the left-wing Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) identified Murtha, a disciple of Nancy Pelosi, as one of the five most corrupt members of Congress.

Ironically, Murtha was a Reserve Colonel in the Corps, and even in that role he exhibited the self-serving attitude that characterized him in Congress.  According to several Marines who served with him in Viet Nam, his Purple Hearts and his Bronze Star were highly questionable.

Naming a ship after John Murtha is a slap in the face of those sailors who will be assigned to the USS John P. Murtha.

Mabus has a long history of giving aid to scoundrals.  He also restored the civil rights of the convicted felon Ike Brown, the first African American ever found liabile for violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

 

One of the most dishonest and aggressive voter fraud deniers is the ill-named Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School.  I document their dishonest campaign to deny voter fraud in Injustice.

One notable example is a report they published called the “Myth of Voter Fraud.”  The report was published in November 2007.  It purports to catalog instances of voter fraud and concludes that voter fraud is a myth.  Yet five months before the report was issued, in June 2007, a federal district court in Mississippi ruled in a case which I tried called United States v. Ike Brown.  It documented instance after instance after instance of voter fraud, including in-person voter impersonation, the sort of thing the Brennan Center denies occurs.

Guess how much of the June 2007 court opinion documenting widespread voter fraud made it into Brennan’s “Myth of Voter Fraud” report?

Exactly none.  They ignored the detailed court ruling because the avalanche of voter fraud did not fit their thesis.

Here is the tragedy – the media take this flimsy report seriously.  Dishonest hacks like Ryan Reilly regularly use the flimsy report to attack efforts to combat voter fraud, and by doing so provide a smokescreen to criminal behavior.  Even outlets with a whiff of credibility use the report.

Today we find a purported news outlet, the Florida Independent, which is funded by the convicted felon George Soros, praising the Brennan Center for Justice, a group that also happens to be funded by the same convicted felon George Soros.  The Independent declares the Brennan Center the winner of their “Best Of” story for 2011 for their role in interfering with Florida’s efforts to clamp down on ACORN-style criminal behavior in the collection of voter registration forms.  As is so often the case, once again, the Brennan Center serves as a smokescreen for criminal activity.

No surprise, the Brennan Center is leading the fight against Voter ID in places like South Carolina and Texas.

The congratulatory article is just one of hundreds of examples of coordinated efforts to undermine the integrity of American elections, all in the hallowed name of civil rights.  That one Soros funded outfit would so brazenly pat another Soros funded outfit on the back shouldn’t be terribly surprising by now.

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer has chimed in on a voting law from a state 600 miles away.  They support DOJ’s objection to South Carolina’s voter identification requirement.  But when voting rights were infringed less than one mile from their 400 N. Broad St. headquarters by armed New Black Panthers, no outrage was in evidence on the pages of the Inquirer.

Philadelphia Inquirer on Voter ID: “The U.S. Department of Justice is taking a hard line with states that pass restrictive voting laws, which is good news for disadvantaged Americans who want their right to vote protected.”

Philadelphia Inquirer on armed New Black Panthers at a poll: “The Obama Justice Department decided not to pursue any penalties against Jackson, who was actually a certified poll watcher. . . . That’s not to say small hate groups aren’t dangerous. But the scale of justice must be applied appropriately, and here it appears that it was.”

 

Merry Christmas. Perhaps you presume Christmas is over, it now being the day after. You might also wonder what a column about the law has to do with Christmas. The first issue is the easy one, for Christmas extends through the Epiphany. Hence those French hens, leapers leaping, drummers drumming and the joy of Mitch Miller singing until the celebration of the Epiphany, January 6. So keep the tree up and the carols playing.

If you are anywhere near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, you can see the most beautiful proof that Christmas extends beyond December 25. Visit the Immaculate Heart of Mary church in Polish Hill or St. Stanislaus Kostka in the Strip District for any mass this week. You will see one of the most beautiful scenes of Christmas. These churches were built by Polish immigrants, and reverent beauty is found there in ways I don’t have the skill to describe.

Consider one visitor to St. Stanislaus Kosta, who later became one of the greatest figures of the 20th century. On July 20, 1969, Polish Cardinal Karol Wojtyla went to the church and prayed. As he knelt in prayer in Pittsburgh, Wojtyla was already a revolutionary who was shaking the communist order from behind the Iron Curtain, years before he became Pope John Paul II. Anyone who doubts the transformational power of faith might read George Weigel’s The End and the Beginning.

Wojtyla used the power of human dignity to expose the indignity of totalitarianism. His evangelization about individual dignity began decades before he became pope, and well before he visited this beautiful church in Pittsburgh.

All of which takes us to the snowy Russian wilderness on Christmas Day in 1919. Evil was on the march, seeking a new foothold in the world — a foothold it would gain, and murder millions in the process. Solzhenitsyn, the eyewitness, called the Soviet gulags a “human sewage disposal system.” The economic philosophy of socialism constructed equally bankrupt systems that devoured human lives at a pace the world had never seen.

And thus, in a cold Russian forest on Christmas Day, some who understood the madness about to engulf their nation paused to reflect on the alternative. The father of PJ Media’s own Hans von Spakovsky was there, and if you read nothing else this season, read this Wall Street Journal story, A Christmas Tale – 1919:

One woman and 16 men, including my father, decided they would try to get out another way. In the middle of a very snowy night, they skied through the Bolshevik lines toward Finland. . . .

With the dark veil of night covering them, they lit the candles and their small pine became a Christmas tree. The scene seemed almost mystical to my father — 17 human beings sitting in the glow of a makeshift Christmas tree in the thicket of a primeval forest. They forgot about the frost of the northern wintry night, their exhaustion, and their anxiety about the future.

No more hatred remained in their hearts, my father told us — only love for God and men alike, friends and enemies. They said a prayer, sang some Christmas hymns, and then sat silently, thinking about what they had lost and were leaving behind, including their families. (My father never saw his mother or his father again.) The candles burned out, and it became dark again around them.

So again, the question, what does Christmas have to do with the law?

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

More at the Bigs on Eric Holder’s objection to S.C. Voter ID.  Learn more about the radical open borders advocate who worked on the case at DOJ, and Charlie Savage’s contortion of numbers at the New York Times.

South Carolina went to Eric Holder for approval of the Voter ID law.  Today Holder objected and blocked the law.

Georgia went to federal court, as I and others have urged for months, to get their voting lines approved.  For good measure, Georgia challenged the constitutionality of Section 5.  Today DOJ caved and agreed to Georgia’s submission.  From the AJC:

Republicans, who pushed through the new maps over Democratic objections during a special August legislative session, had simultaneously submitted its plan to the Justice Department for preclearance and sued the DOJ in federal court. Had the Justice Department rejected its maps, the state would have moved forward with its lawsuit.

Republicans had said publicly that they saw the court case as an avenue toward a declaration that the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. With the DOJ’s approval of its redistricting plan, however, that now seems moot.

Now is the time for Texas and South Carolina to go immediately to federal court for approval of Voter ID, and perhaps do what Georgia did to get DOJ modify their position – challenge Section 5 as unconstitutional.  Governor Haley tonight says:

“It is outrageous, and we plan to look at every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th Amendment rights,” she said in a statement.

Every possible option?  Then follow Georgia’s lead.

Eric Holder has blocked South Carolina’s voter ID law. Hans von Spakovsky and I have been predicting this was going to happen for over eight months here at PJ Media. The only surprising thing is that no halftime adjustments were made after it became even clearer an objection was on the way. Texas now faces the same dilemma. Sadly, I’m not convinced Texas understands the battlefield or the stakes involved.

Attorney General Abbot says on Twitter that “Texas will be next. We’ll fight to the end for ballot integrity.”

If true, then pull the Texas voter ID submission now, tonight, by fax, and go to federal court now, on your terms.

I don’t believe these state officials understand the effect of an objection by the Justice Department. Anybody who has been around these issues regularly, as compared with dabbling in them from time to time, knows the effect of the Scarlet O, the objection.

The first thing that happens is the civil rights industry goes crazy.  They hold a victory celebration in the media, and change the litigation environment if the state ever decides to go to court.  Secondly, the de novo review is a fiction. People in the civil rights industry, and inside Justice, know that once the attorney general has objected, the rules of the game have changed in any future court fight.

Lawyers in Austin and Columbia might have thought an objection carries zero widgets of weight in a subsequent federal court effort to obtain preclearance.  They think a de novo review means a de novo review.  Instead, an objection has about 100 widgets of weight – political, public relations, perception weight, and yes, even silent legal weight.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

One of the erroneous claims that is constantly heard from those who oppose enforcement of our immigration laws and support a general amnesty for illegal aliens is that the presence of illegals does not affect our record high unemployment rate. Supposedly, illegals do jobs that Americans just don’t want to do. But the facts show that may not be the case and that detaining and deporting illegal aliens, as well as punishing employers who knowingly hire illegals, could open up jobs for unemployed Americans.

More proof of that in Alabama, whose controversial immigration law became effective on September 1, 2011 (only a few of its provisions have been enjoined by a federal court). Its most important sections are in place: 1) a mandate that employers use the E-Verify system and lose their business license if they knowingly hire illegals, and 2) a requirement that local police officers check the immigration status of individuals they arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

Amidst reports that illegals started leaving the state as soon as the law became effective, the Daily Caller reports that in September, the state unemployment rate was an appalling 9.8 percent. In two months, even as the Obama administration tried to stop enforcement of Alabama’s new law, the unemployment rate has fallen 1.1 percentage points to 8.7 percent. According to state news reports, this reduction is because “the state’s employers opened up jobs to Americans after shedding illegal immigrants.”

The unemployment rate in just one Alabama county fell 0.7 percentage points just in November, from 8.1 percent to 7.4 percent. Marshall County is an agricultural county with several chicken processing plants. With illegal immigrants leaving the county, over 600 legal residents have been hired. One of the county’s council members, Chuck Ellis, points to the drop in the unemployment rate as “proof that people – American Citizens [and] legal migrants, have suffered at the hands of politicians who choose politics over economics.” According to the Daily Caller story, Ellis was quoted as saying “Is that a difference of great significance? Ask those families [whose members are now employed] for an answer as they undertake the Christmas season.”

More evidence that part of solving the economic morass that we are in, and reducing our high unemployment, is enforcing our immigration laws, securing our border, and finding, detaining, and deporting illegal aliens.

 

 

More on Perjury Confessions Inside DOJ

December 22nd, 2011 - 2:57 am

Hans von Spakovsky has the details today, breaking news of confessions of perjury inside the DOJ that, he reports, have gone entirely unpunished.

The Daily Caller has this story. 

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has this take.

I have the “Featured Story” over at Andrew Breitbart’s Bigs, and linked at Big Government with more about the culture of lies inside the Obama Justice Department.  What do the false statements to Congress in the New Black Panther scandal have to do with the false statements to Congress in the Fast and Furious scandal?  Simple, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich.  From my piece at BigGovernment.com:

Assistant Attorney General Ron Weich also contributes to the problem at DOJ. He authored a letter to Congress about Fast and Furious which was false.  Weich previously submitted another false letter to Congress on July 13, 2009, regarding the dismissal of the New Black Panther case. In it, he told Congress that the voter intimidation case against one Panther had been dismissed because the defendant “was a resident of the apartment building where the polling place was located.” That was blatantly false.  The Panther in question did not live in the building. As in Fast and Furious, the Weich letter had to be retracted because Weich didn’t tell Congress the truth.

Too often people focus on Eric Holder in these DOJ scandals.  They fail to understand that the bureaucracy itself has become corrupted and people below Eric Holder help drive the decay.  Eric Holder is not the alpha and omega of DOJ malfeasence.  Others should face Congressional scrutiny also, and the wrath of an outraged public in 2012.  What should Congress do about Weich’s repeated false statements to them? Simple:

Memo to Congress:  Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution applies to Weich. Use it. He would likely be gone in a fortnight.

Will this happen?  Not if the timid prevail and the righteous do not, of course.  But make no mistake about it, the White House sees the festering electoral vulnerabilities over at Justice, and they may act even if some in Congress fail to take action:

When Holder is run out of office by suddenly courageous Congressional Republicans–or, more likely, by a White House that understands the damage that would follow if they tried–it will be interesting to see where he lands. Will Big Law welcome him back with open arms at his old firm, Covington and Burling? Or will Holder be treated as he deserves to be treated? I’ll bet on the former.

Until that happens, expect this to get uglier, with your government accusing people who care, and the press itself, of base motives for reporting the facts.  Ugly times indeed.

How the New York Times and Charlie Savage Lie

December 18th, 2011 - 12:31 pm

Today offers a good lesson in the mechanics of how the New York Times twists the truth.  As he often is, today’s truth twister is Charlie Savage. Savage won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on politicization of the Bush DOJ.  He received the resumes of Bush-era DOJ attorney hires in a saga covered numerous times at PJ Media. I cover Savage’s reporting in my book Injustice, and how he failed to mention all of the attorneys hired in the Bush DOJ, but only the ones which fit his narrative.  In contrast, PJ Media did Charlie’s job the right way during the Obama administration. We FOIA’ed ALL of the Obama DOJ hires, and wrote about Every Single One of them here.  The scoreboard: 113 out of 113 hires were leftists or political. Savage only reported on some of the attorneys hired; we reported on all of them.

Savage today provides America an example how the New York Times lies. Savage was in Austin, as I was, last Tuesday to cover Eric Holder’s speech. I counted at one point 127 people at the rally held by True the Vote, where I spoke. The story could have been written by Eric Holder’s Press Harpy at the Office of Public Affairs. Then again, there isn’t much daylight between the New York Times and the government these days.

Here is how Savage portrays the 127 who came to the True the Vote rally:

Outside, half a dozen protesters waited within shouting distance of his motorcade, and a phalanx of police officers waited to escort him to the airport. But as Mr. Holder lingered inside, the protesters eventually drifted away.  (emphasis added).

Of course, Savage might claim he was talking about the protesters after the speech. Why?  Aren’t the 127 before Holder’s speech voicing substantive opposition to Holder the more worthy mention? It would be if the New York Times cared about objectivity, which of course it does not.  Indeed the Times runs a photo of a small portion of the large rally.  And even this photo  has 18 people in it, not “half a dozen.”  Savage wants you to think six people protested Holder instead of 127.

Consider Savage’s second instance of journalistic mischief this week. On Tuesday, I watched Savage from three feet away interview Catherine Englebrecht of True the Vote.  Totally unnecessary disclosure: True the Vote is a client.  He asked Englebrecht if she had ever personally witnessed voter fraud or voter impersonation at the polls.  Englebrecht answered that she did not personally witness it, but she managed a program that documented dozens of instances of illegalities at the polls, and more than one instance of people voting multiple times, under assumed identities with multiple voter registration cards. How did Savage report Englebrecht’s answer?

Such problems, Ms. Engelbrecht said, included people showing up at polls without any identification, or showing up with multiple voter registration cards in different names, and being allowed to vote; she said she had not witnessed such irregularities during her own service as a volunteer at polling places, but had heard about them happening from other poll watchers.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet