» 2013 » June

Rule of Law

Monthly Archives: June 2013

Justice for Trayvon, Race-Hustler Style

June 27th, 2013 - 1:56 pm

Right now, hanging on the door of a federal employee’s office in the Department of Justice Voting Section is a sign expressing racial solidarity with Trayvon Martin.  What this has to do with the Department of Justice is perhaps a mystery, but not to me.

One might ponder why the Justice Department Civil Rights Division rushed to Florida in the first place and took sides once the racial furnace was sufficiently stoked.  When Eric Holder’s old pal from D.C. (and a Philadelphia court case), New Black Panther chieftain Malik Zulu Shabazz, called for a 10,000 strong black-male mob to seize George Zimmerman, we knew what was in store.

It wasn’t going to be justice.

But Justice came to Florida anyhow, in the form of the Community Relations Service of Eric Holder’s DOJ.  Instead of calming the racial tensions, the DOJ took sides.  Instead of calming the mob, the DOJ joined it — providing training for the mob and even arranging a police escort.

This is justice, race-hustler style. When Malik Zulu Shabazz demands blood, Eric Holder arrives to deliver a more moderate face to mob anger.

But notice Holder never condemned the calls for vigilantism.  Why would he? We’ve learned Holder’s sense of justice depends on what the parties look like.  He never has a discouraging word for certain agitators, including Malik Zulu Shabazz.

But if you are Texas, South Carolina, or a majority of the Supreme Court, beware.

Now the nation sees what race-hustler style justice looks like at trial.  Florida, cowed into bringing charges after the race-hustler threats and overt DOJ “interest,” at last is forced to put on a case before a jury.  And what a clown show it has become.

The star witness for the prosecution, Rachel Jeantel, tells America with a straight face that “cracker isn’t a racial term.”

Right, and the New Black Panthers didn’t do anything wrong.

Rachel, call Tom Perez at the DOJ.  He has a job waiting for you.


Jeantel also testified she couldn’t read cursive writing. In particular, she couldn’t read her statement she purportedly wrote (in cursive) implicating George Zimmerman.

If  the prosecutors had any sense of justice, at this point they would call a recess and null process the case. But this is justice, race-hustler style. The lawyers probably would be afraid to leave the courthouse if they did.  Malik Zulu Shabazz might put a bounty on their heads next.

Pages: 1 2 | 71 Comments bullet bullet

The Supreme Court has decided Shelby v. Holder. It is one of the most important decisions in decades.

Now, federal preclearance of state election procedures seems to be forever dead and buried. While some congressional Republicans had vowed to enact new legislation to “fix” any coverage formula deemed unconstitutional, the opinion today offers almost no room to do so. They would have to decide what’s more important: the Republican Party, or the Constitution?

Section 5 required states to obtain preclearance approval for any change involving elections — any change, even moving a polling place 20 feet. Only 15 states were covered by Section 5, including hotbeds of Jim Crow like Michigan, New York, and Alaska.

Over the years, the Justice Department unit enforcing Section 5 has had hundreds of thousands of dollars in court sanctions imposed against it for abusing the Section 5 process.  They even demanded that Alabama submit felon DNA testing to the Justice Department for approval, a law which had nothing to do with elections.

Now, voter ID laws in Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi are in effect after a delay of years. Section 5 is dead and gone, and congressional Republicans, no matter how much racialist false witness is lobbed at them, simply have no ability to resurrect the law. Will the GOP defend itself against the already-commenced false racial attacks following the decision, or will they cave?

This decision restores the original post-15th Amendment balance to the Constitution. The opinion quoted the Tenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court  asserted the core function of our federal system — to preserve liberty:

But the federal balance “is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

Pages: 1 2 | 35 Comments bullet bullet

I feel compelled to revise my earliest comments on the NSA Prism leaker, the man we now know as Edward Snowden.  My first draft on Snowden, before we knew who he was, and more importantly, his travel plans, said:

The whistleblower who blew up PRISM is an American hero who joins others who have kept the republic alive like Joshua Chamberlain and Harold Agerholm — which probably means the corrupt and dastardly attorney general will prosecute them.

That conclusion deserves revision, which I’ll get to in a moment.  But the rest of the original piece still stands, including:

Yesterday we crossed a line. What once seemed kooky is now happening. I figured this would be a fight for a future generation, but it is ours. The frightening future has arrived.  The American government has never done anything as sinister as PRISM.

Prism is invading constitutional liberties and appears to have accomplished next to nothing, except invading our constitutional liberties.  And for revealing this massive institutional invasion of freedom, whether treasonous or not, we are better off.

Loving the sinner and hating the sin is a concept familiar to many.  With Snowden, the reverse is appropriate. We should be thankful we know about Prism, but should pursue the scoundrel to the ends of the Earth.  Unfortunately, that means a journey to countries known more for the oppression that Snowden purports to disdain.

For starters, Snowden’s first destination, Hong Kong, is under the effective control of the Red Chinese, the same gang that kills Catholics and hacks America regularly.

Then he exercises doubly bad judgment by boarding an Aeroflot flight to Moscow for refuge. Putting aside Aeroflot’s safety record, Russia is now a nation more known for oppression of political opponents than transparency.

Of all the foreign intelligence services, is there anyone who would want to “debrief” Snowden more than China and Russia?

Not content to visit only a pair of oppressive regimes, Snowden’s plans also included Cuba, Venezuela and Ecuador.

Simply, Snowdon is a fool.  He professes to care about liberty, then flees to nation which opposes it.  He professes to care about transparency, then flees to nations with active secret police.  Snowden is a traitor to the nation, even if his treason might help save it.

Ultimately, this story is not about Edward Snowden. It is about the government behavior he revealed.





PJ Media has obtained documents demonstrating that the New Hampshire attorney general was in discussions with Eric Holder’s Department of Justice regarding filing criminal charges against journalist James O’Keefe after he exposed vulnerabilities in New Hampshire’s electoral system in the January 10, 2012, presidential primary.

In his hidden-camera investigation, O’Keefe demonstrated how the lack of a photo-voter identification law in New Hampshire facilitated voter fraud by allowing impersonation of dead voters.  Worse, O’Keefe captured video showing that election officials like Ryk Bullock were oblivious to this vulnerability.

Ryk Bullock

Ryk Bullock


Bullock said that voter impersonation of dead voters could not take place “because we are tied into a statewide system. So when someone passes away, that name is immediately dropped from the statewide database, within a matter of days. … We go to great lengths.”  Bullock was wrong.

As a direct result of O’Keefe’s expose, the New Hampshire legislature passed a photo voter -identification law.

State and federal officials, however, targeted O’Keefe after his expose.

New Hampshire Associate Attorney General Richard Head managed a criminal investigation of O’Keefe which included boorish and unprofessional attempts to serve grand jury subpoenas on O’Keefe and his employees.

But documents reveal that Head’s pursuit of O’Keefe went beyond his ham-handed efforts at service of process.

On January 17, 2012, Head convened a meeting with at least eight top-ranking law enforcement officials about O’Keefe’s expose.  Included for this meeting were Obama appointee and United States Attorney for New Hampshire John Kacavas. State officials included Senior Assistant New Hampshire Attorney General Jane Young, Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards, Bureau Chief Mary Ann Dempsey, attorney Matthew Mavrogeorge, investigator Mark Mydrek, and Deputy Attorney General Ann Rice.

Ann Rice (L) and Jane Young (R)

Ann Rice (L) and Jane Young (R)

The January 17 meeting was just the beginning.

Pages: 1 2 | 33 Comments bullet bullet

Something perverse happened after the Supreme Court’s decision today invalidating citizenship-verification requirements in Arizona for registrants who use the federal voter registration form. The Left knows they lost most of the battle, but are still claiming victory. That’s what they do. Election-integrity proponents and the states are saying they lost, but don’t realize they really won.

The Left wins even when they lose, and conservatives are often bewildered and outfoxed in the election-process game.

Earlier today, I called the decision a nothingburger. After re-reading the case and reflecting a bit more, it’s clear that the decision was a disaster for the Left and their victory cackles are hollow — and they know it.

Worse, conservatives dooms-dayers who have never litigated a single National Voter Registration Act case have taken to the airwaves, describing the case as a disaster which invites illegal-alien voting.

In the last year, I’ve litigated five NVRA cases and worked on the preemption issues for years, and there is more to cheer in today’s opinion than there is to bemoan. Those complaining about the opinion don’t understand what the Left’s goal was in this case: total federal preemption. On that score, Justice Scalia foiled them; indeed, the decision today was a huge war won, even if the small Arizona battle was lost.

From my time in the Justice Department Voting Section, I can remember intimately the wars over some of the preemption issues decided today.

The Left essentially believes that anyone who fills out a federal Election Assistance Commission registration form should be allowed on the rolls, no questions asked. There were complex fights over the “citizen check-off box” issues, with the Left wanting the box rendered meaningless, and conservatives and election-integrity proponents believing a registration cannot be processed until a registrant affirms on the box that he or she is a citizen.

Before the decision today, here is what the Left wanted:

● Invalidation of Arizona’s requirement that those submitting a federal form provide proof of citizenship with their federal form. Mind you, the citizenship-proof requirement is NOT part of federal law and the Election Assistance Commission does NOT require it in the form they drafted.

● Invalidation of state citizenship-verification requirements when a state voter registration form is used (yes, such forms exist separate from the federal requirement) on the basis of federal preemption. They wanted the Arizona case to invalidate all state citizenship-verification requirements.

● Automatic registration if a registrant submits a completed federal EAC approved registration form, no questions asked.

● Federal preemption on the ability for states to have customized federal EAC-approved forms that differed from the default EAC form.

● Federal preemption over states, like Florida and Kansas, looking for independent information on citizenship to root out noncitizens from the voter rolls. Again, the Left wanted the federal EAC form to be the no-questions-asked ticket to the voter rolls.

So what is the score on these five goals after Justice Scalia’s opinion today? Election-integrity advocates are batting .800; left wing groups, .200. And the most insignificant issue of the five is the one issue the Left won. Justice Scalia foiled 4 of 5 of their goals, and the 4 biggest ones.

Pages: 1 2 | 55 Comments bullet bullet


The phrases “someone should” or “someone needs to” make me cringe — they explain why the organized Left has beaten conservatives for the last two decades. The Left doesn’t wait around for someone else to do it. Breakthrough: Our Guerrilla War to Expose Fraud and Save Democracy, the new book by James O’Keefe, makes clear this problem to armchair patriots who think someone else is better qualified to engage in direct action. It is a how-to guide for a modern activist craving a blueprint for action.

O’Keefe didn’t accomplish his many stings with the backing of a billionaire. The book begins with O’Keefe at rock-bottom:

I woke up in a fetal position, on a green mattress stained with seminal fluid, to the sound of my fellow prisoners chanting the Qu’ran.

It didn’t get much better after that. Between working on a road chain gang breaking up rocks, O’Keefe was able to expose NPR fundraisers as even more biased than we assumed, to expose massive vulnerabilities in our electoral system, and to expose gun opponents as the hypocrites they are.

Breakthrough mentions this bootstrap approach in Veritas Rule #2: “You must do what you can with what you have.” O’Keefe accomplished these narrative-altering events amidst far stronger headwinds than most of you reading this review face. O’Keefe takes you inside each of his stings, from the planning, to the scouting of the target, to the endless battles with the establishment media and their efforts to crush his narrative.

O’Keefe, a fellow Eagle scout, also had to battle the law. His famous case arising out of the botched sting of Senator Mary Landrieu’s office is just one example. In New Hampshire, O’Keefe also crossed the appropriately named Dick Head, a state assistant attorney general (who has still failed to produce records which I requested in a Freedom of Information Act request a year ago. Mr. Head must not be familiar with past FOIA lawsuits from these parts against far bigger non-compliant fish).

Dick Head

Dick Head

Per Veritas Rule #5: “The law will always surround you. Learn it.” Head harassed O’Keefe by serving subpoenas on his group after they exposed massive vulnerabilities in New Hampshire elections. In the absence of voter ID, O’Keefe’s crew were given ballot after ballot for dead voters. (A personal memory: I’ll never forget spending a solid 15 minutes on the phone laughing convulsively with Andrew Breitbart at the sight of poll official Ryk Bullock describing how nobody could ever obtain a ballot for dead voter — after watching a bunch of people do precisely that. Neither of us could speak. O’Keefe’s stunt was perfect; activist lightning.)


O’Keefe describes the “anti-journalists” who are quick to defend the government or the status quo: anti-journalists don’t expose the powerful and corrupt, but rather make a career of defending them. After O’Keefe began his stings of state election sites, instead of criticizing the vulnerabilities his videos exposed, some journalists attacked O’Keefe. One headline is laughable in hindsight: “Election Law Experts Say James O’Keefe Allies Could Face Charges Over Voter Fraud Stunt,” from Ryan Reilly at TPM Muckraker. Reilly’s article appeared on January 11, 2012. Reilly’s partisan sources were wrong — O’Keefe has never been charged because he did nothing illegal; “experts” Rick Hasen (“risk a felony conviction”) and David Schultz (“what they did violated the law”) both blew it. Naturally, these sources were recruited by Reilly because they are known primarily for denying the existence of voter fraud — some people actually do build a career on providing intellectual cover for criminals.

Pages: 1 2 | 2 Comments bullet bullet

The results are in.  Despite criticism, the inclusion of Louis Farrakhan with Alabama Democrats on a tour to rally support for federal preclearance obligations of the Voting Rights Act brought warm accolades from those at the rally.  The Birmingham News reports:

“What I know is Minister Farrakhan will give us words of wisdom and true guidance and words to unite people,” said Brenda Beyah, a new resident of Birmingham. “I would like to see those who are meant to be here to come and fellowship with one another.”

Tuskegee Mayor Johnny Ford at the Birmingham rally told gatherers that Farrakhan is a strong leader among African-Americans. Farrakhan is the “only black man in America who was able to bring more than a million black men to the nation’s capital,” Ford said.

Gregory Jones, assistant to Birmingham Mayor William Bell, said the city’s top leader could not attend today’s rally because his mother is in the hospital. “The City of Birmingham stands firmly in support of Section 5,” Jones told the crowd. Jones noted support for Farrakhan’s visit to the city for the rally. “For Mr. Farrakhan to lend his name and credibility to this cause is very, very important to us,” he said.

Marion Nu’Man, who lives in Birmingham, sat in the shade by the fountain in Kelly Ingram Park to await Farrakhan’s speech. “I think all so-called religions and knowledgeable people are looking for the Jesus,” she said. “Today they will be able to see him.”

Not everyone was impressed with the racist anti-Semite appearing at a rally to support Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act:

“Yet, there was Farrakhan, a man who openly compares Jews to Satan, speaking not too far away from a tree planted in the park commemorating Anne Frank, the young Jewish girl who perished in the Holocaust whose diary has inspired millions,” Richard Friedman wrote.

Update: Headline in the Montgomery Advertiser:

Louis Farrakhan blasts Jews and whites

Nation of Islam leader speaks at rally for Voting Rights Act

PJ Media first reported on the anti-Semite, anti-white bigot Louis Farrakhan‘s participation in a series of Democrat-sponsored rallies across Alabama in support of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  The case of Shelby v. Holder will be decided by the Supreme Court this month and may strike down the requirement that 15 states submit all election-law changes to the federal government for approval.  This requirement has been used to block a variety of state laws designed to protect election integrity, including Texas voter ID and Georgia citizenship-verification requirements to vote.

In support of this “preclearance” requirement, a group of Democrat senators, Democrat local officials, and Democrat Party officials have enlisted the help of the bigot Louis Farrakhan. The group toured Alabama on Friday with stops in Birmingham, Selma, and Montgomery.


In Selma, they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. In 1965, the racists were on the far side of the bridge awaiting the marchers. In 2013, the racist marched across the bridge in support of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

It’s unclear why a black bigot is considered a credible spokesman for support of Section 5 of the Voting Rights  Act.  Obviously Alabama Democrat Party leader Joe Reed and Alabama Senators Hank Sanders and Bobby Singleton think Farrakhan is a suitable spokesman to defend Section 5.  (Click here to see a video of Farrakhan saying “death” is the only answer for whites, and that whites should be “boiled in oil.” See also, “Yes Justice Scalia, Section 5 Really is a Racial Entitlement“ at PJ Media.)

Quin Hillyer is running for Congress in Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.  His press release on the Democrats teaming up with the bigot Farrakhan reads:

Congressional candidate Quin Hillyer today denounced the chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party and two state senators for including the viciously anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan as one of the featured leaders in their political rally today.

Hillyer said, “Farrakhan is a horribly destructive interloper in the discussions about equal rights for all Americans. The Alabama Democratic Party and elected officials should not bring this kind of racial hate speech to a political rally here in Alabama.  Activists like Farrakhan pollute the conversation and obstruct genuine progress on civil rights.”

The rallies featuring Farrakhan involve Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. A brief explanation of Section 5 is located at the end of this release.

Reasonable people can disagree about the continuing wisdom and constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” Hillyer said. “I have great respect for those who are motivated by sincere desire to counter the effects of racism and believe otherwise about Section 5. However, I refuse to respect anyone who associates with an open anti-Semite and racist like Louis Farrakhan.

As for me, I strongly support most of the Voting Rights Act but oppose Section 5 as an unconstitutional, costly, and discriminatory provision that puts unfair burdens on Alabama and treats us as if we are guilty until proven innocent.”

Hillyer was a founding board member 24 years ago of an organization that led the fight to stop the political career of the racist and anti-Semitic Louisianan David Duke. Hillyer, an award winning columnist, is running in a special election for Congress in Alabama’s First Congressional District. He has a long history of passionate advocacy for equal rights and opportunity under the law, including a series of ground-breaking Mobile Register columns touting a financial recovery plan for Prichard, AL – a town populated predominantly by African Americans.

Farrakhan’s history is well known. Bill Nigut, southeast regional director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), noted that the ADL has “repeatedly demonstrated that Minister Farrakhan is a promoter of hatred and bigotry who routinely peppers his speeches with virulently anti-Semitic remarks and more generalized condemnations of all white people.” As recently as three weeks ago Farrakhan was spewing anti-Semitic rants about what Farrakhan called “The Synagogue of Satan.”

And not a whisper from any of the usual “journalists” quick to accuse Republicans of racism.  Not one whisper.


Coming to see ‘the Jesus’: Racist Farrakhan Embraced by Alabama Democrats

When the FBI finally fires up its criminal investigation of the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, there is one person the special agent in charge better be sure to interview — former White House Counsel Robert Bauer. The FBI may discover the whole IRS mess leads through the land of campaign finance “reform” and an obsession with speech regulation, an obsession shared by Bauer.

Any criminal investigation identifies for further scrutiny those with motive, opportunity, and means, and Bauer deserves no quarter from FBI investigators on those three counts.

Robert Bauer

Robert Bauer

The Crimes

Without any doubt, crimes were committed by IRS employees, not the least of which was the fact that IRS employees disclosed confidential information from IRS forms to the political enemies of the groups seeking tax-exempt status.

For example, Cindy Thomas, the Cincinnati unit manager for exempt organizations at the IRS, illegally released the tax applications of nine separate conservative organizations to the left-wing group ProPublica. The IRS claims that Thomas’ illegal release of private tax information was an “accident,” but the excuse is absurd.

Thomas wasn’t the only IRS employee leaking the tax information of conservative groups to their enemies. Pro-marriage groups found their confidential information in the hands of gay marriage advocacy organizations.

The FBI can start by finding out whether Thomas and her fellow IRS travelers in fact released the private information. If the FBI says Thomas cannot be prosecuted because she claims it was an accident, then Congress needs to step in and impose mandatory minimum prison sentences for any IRS employee that releases private information, accidental or not.

The bigger question the FBI must get to the bottom of is who hatched the policy of targeting Tea Party groups that led to these crimes?  For that they should turn back to Robert Bauer.

The Motive

Robert Bauer had the motive to direct IRS policy against Tea Party groups. He is a longtime opponent of First Amendment freedoms and an advocate of government-speech regulation. He also can’t stand the work the Tea Party is conducting to monitor and eradicate voter fraud, work the Republican Party and national campaigns have utterly failed to perform.

During the 2008 election, while representing the Obama campaign, Bauer sent a threatening letter to the Justice Department demanding criminal investigations of people who had the audacity to speak about voter fraud. Bauer even singled out Sarah Palin in the letter. Anyone who “developed or disseminated” information about voter fraud, to Bauer, deserved the heavy boot of a criminal investigation.  Read the letter; it reveals a nasty, thuggish, and lawless attitude toward political opposition.

To Bauer, those merely speaking about voter fraud were worthy of criminal investigation. Sound familiar?

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin

Hindsight reveals why Bauer was so agitated.  Two Obama campaign staffers, Amy Little and Yolanda Hippensteele, later pleaded guilty to voter fraud.  We also know, courtesy of John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky, that a Minnesota election for U.S. Senate was decided by voter fraud in 2008. And who can forget Melowese Richardson, the Obama activist and poll official in Ohio who said on camera that she voted multiple times for President Obama in 2008?  I could go on and on with multiple examples of voter fraud from 2008 where candidate Obama was the beneficiary.

Pages: 1 2 | 45 Comments bullet bullet

Government targeting of conservatives is not confined to a couple of federal departments, as demonstrated by the events in a small District of Columbia employee relations board. A letter obtained by PJ Media documents open racism and hostility toward pregnant and conservative employees in the D.C. Public Employee Relations Board (PERB). The letter also demonstrates that lawless hostility toward conservatives is a characteristic of all levels of government.

According to a resignation letter from its executive director, this District of Columbia government board responsible for resolving employee disputes with management has engaged in racist hiring practices, discrimination against pregnant women, and hostility toward conservatives.

The behavior described in the resignation letter of former executive director Ondray Harris is another example of the broader hostility toward conservatives found throughout federal agencies such as the IRS, EPA, and Justice Department.

Ondray Harris, an attorney, resigned as executive director of PERB on May 24, 2013. His resignation letter contains accounts of disturbing, racist, and illegal behavior by board members Don Wasserman and Ann Hoffman. Among the behavior:

Harris, an African-American, was criticized by board member Don Wasserman for hiring white men to work for PERB. From the letter:

“Mr. Wasserman rebuked me with regard to my hiring white male employees. What is more, Mr. Wasserman demanded that I ‘refrain from hiring white men in the future’ to fill open Attorney-Advisor positions supporting PERB.”


Don Wasserman

On November 8, 2012, PERB conducted a confidential executive session where hostility toward hiring conservatives was on open display. (See similar behavior at Eric Holder’s Department of Justice as covered extensively in PJ Media’s “Every Single One” series.)

At the confidential executive session, PERB members Don Wasserman and Ann Hoffman sought ways to fire Erin Wilcox.

Her transgression? From the letter:

“They objected that Ms. Wilcox, a white female, had a professional employment record which they perceived as being conservative or politically right-of-center. In fact, Ms. Hoffman declared: ‘Someone with a resume like hers doesn’t belong here’ and ‘should never work here.’”

Ann Hoffman

Ann Hoffman

In the District of Columbia, it is illegal to refuse to hire employees because of their political affiliation. Everywhere in America, it is illegal to refuse to hire employees because of their race. Wasserman and Hoffman both broke the law, yet they remain on the board and probably think they did nothing wrong.

Wasserman’s campaign against the “right-of-center” employee Wilcox later took a sinister turn when he wanted to fire Wilcox because she was pregnant.

When Harris mentioned to Wasserman that Wilcox would be on maternity leave, Wasserman directed: “good, maybe we can get rid of her that way.”

Pages: 1 2 | 31 Comments bullet bullet