Sources inside the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department tell me that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, the controversial career lawyer who ordered the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, has announced that she is resigning. King is infamous within the Division for her opposition to race-neutral enforcement of discrimination laws. She made it very clear to her subordinates that she did not want any lawsuits filed against minority defendants no matter what violations of federal voting rights laws they committed. This was the lawyer chosen by President Obama to be the acting head of the Civil Rights Division when he took office.
As the highest ranking career lawyer in the Division, King once hauled former Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates into her office and angrily ordered him to stop asking job applicants whether they would enforce the Voting Rights Act against all violators regardless of their race. She is the official who rejected a change from partisan to nonpartisan elections in Kinston, N.C., that had been approved by black voters because she did not believe they would know which candidates to vote for without a party label. She cost the American taxpayer almost $600,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs after she lost a frivolous redistricting case filed against the state of Georgia in which the court said it was “disturbed” by the “considerable influence of ACLU advocacy” on the decisions made by the DOJ lawyers. King was promptly promoted after that decision. There will be considerably more revelations about her dubious and questionable behavior as a government lawyer in Christian Adams’s upcoming book, “Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department” when it is released on October 4.
It is hard to imagine that King’s resignation after all of these years at the Justice Department is not related to the exposure of her misdeeds and unprofessionalism in PJ Media and other conservative news sites. For all those who believe in the fundamental American constitutional principle of equal treatment under the law, the Justice Department’s loss is America’s gain.
Good.
Made my day.
Another enemy of We The People gone.
Congrats to all at Pajamas Media and to Christian Adams, for shining a light into the darkness.
My day too.
And a special thanks to Christian Adams who is a hero in my eyes.
It looks like there will be a lawyer to replace Obama at his old job working for Acorn after all.
Hans didn’t post the link above, but yes, what has been reported at Pajamas about King is just the tip of the iceberg. More outlandish conduct is detailed in Injustice, which officially launches next week. It was a good week to resign. Here is the link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1596982772/pajamasmedia-20
Christian, the heavy lifting you did to expose the leftist takeover of the DOJ through politicized hiring, is that again the tip of a different iceberg?
It’s evident now that by hiring these people into civil service positions, the left has ensured that there is a hardcore cadre of saboteurs that will actively work to undermine anything a Republican president (the gods be willing) in 2013 tries to do. Given full civil service protections, it will take years and tens of millions of dollars in litigation to remove these moles just from DOJ, won’t it?
The EPA, the NLRB, the FCC, the Labor Department are all already showing their new stripes, and there is no reason to believe that the hiring process hasn’t been infected in the entire government, is there. But what about every other department of the entire federal monstrosity – is there any active effort to determine if these have also been packed with leftist radicals to do the same everywhere?
That leaves how many left who need to do the same, starting with Holder?
It’s like termites. If you see them, it’s already too late.
Pray mightily. And buy lead.
I was watching an old ’50′s sci-fi movie, fairly low-budget, just today. There’s this one scene where the government starts making announcements about the danger, and you see the people responding by following instructions. It made me realize something: Once upon a time, the majority of people in our nation believed in and trusted the government. It’s hard to imagine people trusting in or believing far too many of our elected officials and bureaucrats today, isn’t it?
I want my country back.
You’ve got your country, what you need back is your government – one that you can follow like those people back in the 50s without worrying where it will lead you. The current one hasn’t led us anywhere. It was off having a circle jerk while we were being chased up a tree by bears.
Yeah, a government like the one in the 50′s that you can trust…to remove your rights if you disagree. Yay for witch-hunts and McCarthy, blind obedience to a government that told you a desk would save you from a Nuke, the destruction of the Bill Of Rights, and the beginning of an Aristocracy of Arms Dealers who peddled fear, sold to both sides, and lobbied to keep soldiers pay from increasing significantly for over 40 years but increased the miitary budget to more than all other nations combined. No offence, but the country you yearn for never existed.
Even less did the one you describe.
No offense, of course (BTW, I note that you spell the word “offense” like a foreigner), but you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
History, and yes I have a clue. Maybe you should read a book. Other than two typos, can you find any actual critique of what I said? Go ahead, look it up and refute something. I’ll wait…
Well, the government never said being under a desk would save you from a nuke.
And McCarthy was *right* — we’ve seen the Soviet records that proved it. He was an idiot and a bully, but the Soviets *did* have agents in the government.
You might be ok with giving up your rights to a powerhungry government and its agents, I am not.
geez, Adam, haven’t you learned that Sen.Joe McCarthy was actually a hero, and not the witch-hunting demon which the imbedded socialist educators “taught” us he was? Lenin began the covert operations into our country back in the 1920′s… McCarthy had it right, much more than not….
Hallelujah! One professional racist bites the dust.
There is hope for justice and a post-racial America yet.
One down, too many more to go. :[
By the way, ducking under the desk wasn’t to save you from the bomb it was to save you from the pieces of the building falling apart around you. Like standing in a doorway during an earthquake or laying in a ditch if a tornado passes.
In an atomic blast, I think the last thing you are worrying about is the I-beams. You die, regardless of your location; a desk won’t save you from vaporization. It is nothing like an earthquake or tornado.
As to my earlier critic: What, other than two typos, is innacurate about my post? I do know what I am talking about, it is called history, and it is a matter of public record if you wish to avail yourself of it. I am not being contentious, just asking you to go research your opinion that I am claiming falsehoods and prove me wrong, if that is the case, but I have made a specific study of America in the 20th Century and all evidence supports my claim that the American Government suppressed the rights of lawful citizens of dissenting opinions without due process, conducted witch-hunts under the lead of Senator McCarthy in the name of security, required religious tests for public service(which is unconstitutional), created a standing military with presences worldwide to police the globe, did not drastically increase the pay to soldiers for service to keep up with cost of living and left many of them without adequate coverage for wounds and illnesses they suffered in the service (we should take care of our soldiers better, and veterans even more), yet a massive military industrial complex was fed from the military budget, one which exceeded the entire rest of the worlds spending on “defense.” But again, could’t afford to take care of our soldiers who risk their lives for us, or the veterans who survive our conflicts. Please tell me where I am wrong.
Every time the budget was increased, the lobbyists for the military industrial complex fought to get every dime available, knowing full well that this practice kept the armed forces from being able to pay more to the soldiers; veterans associations had to go seek supplementary funding from donations and other forms of charity when their care should have been covered entirely under the budget for the armed forces. In the end, services which the military personell should have been able to take care of themselves had to be contracted out to-suprise- the very same military industrial complex which had sucessfully appropriated most of the budget to begin with. This practice is parasitic, operates with a complete disregard for the essential nature of a social contract (one where we as citizens agreed to give up the right to kill and entrusted that to our government on our behalf with the agreement that this given power is not to be abused in our names). State-sponsored killing is not something for the market to be involved in, and should exist only for the preservation of our national wellbeing (death-penalty) and protection (defense); it should not be a for-profit enterprise. Since such behavior has been allowed, our military has spent record amounts of money, and accrued massive amounts of debt, all without significant changes to the way we treat our servicemen since the start of the Cold War. You would think with the kind of budget we have for “defense” we might have become more compassionate and supportive of the men and women who risk the greatest sacrifice for us.
Are we getting new trolls, or recycled relabeled old ones?
It would be an interesting footnote to know if any of her college and law school education was achieved upon the magic carpet of affirmative action.
Cupcake anyone?
Resigned, yes, but where to from here? Be interesting to see where she surfaces.
It seems that the new Democratic talking point is going to be that it has been Bush era military spending(but not that kind that went to individuals actually serving in the military)that has gotten us so far into debt NOT that buying of vote kind of spending that politicans use to syphon money to their supporters.
Did I get that right Adam?
First, I am not a democrat, and neither am I a supporter of Obama. Second,
McCarthy might have been right that people who were communist were in the government, but that still does not justify violating the Bill of Rights for Americans, ever. We in America live in a marketplace of ideas, and freedom of conscience is one of the inalienable rights that the founders all agreed upon; to infringe upon that is villany, regardless of motivation. Those of you who would attempt to vindicate McCarthy are just as bad as the Democrats who would put cameras on every corner and make us like Britian, a nanny state to coddle its citizens; only difference is in how you would justify your infringement upon all of our rights.
In case you haven’t figured it our yet, I am a Libertarian. Both parties use targeted spending, called pork-barrel spending, to syphon money to their supporters; the democrats tried infrastructure spending to hide money to a poorly mannaged Solyndra to the tune of a few million dollars, republicans syphoned billions for “defense” to Cheney’s old company Halliburton; both are wrong, and both come at the expense of the constituents, and both are the actions of parties which are no longer worried about the people and treat us citizens like so much tradable livestock in the marketplace of ideas. They don’t represent you, and I find it disturbing to come to a website dedicated to the clearing away of illusion and falsity only to find a staid defense of the people who would be your masters, the people who lie to you for your vote and then go on with business as usual, the people who put up smoke-screens to blind you from the truth, the people who infringe on your Constitutional Rights. They must go, regardless of party, race, sex, and creed.
What infrastructure spending did the Democrats try, exactly? It is widely known, and even acknowledged by Obama himself, that there were no “shovel ready” infrastructure jobs. The “stimulus” was a bailout for state budgets, to keep their heavily unionized (and Obama campaign supporting) workforce from experiencing the types of layoffs that the private sector had. So nearly a trillion dollars went to Democrat wet dreams and the circular pipeline that leads right back to their campaign coffers.
And how did $535 million wasted on Solyndra get to be a “few” million?
While the necessity of the wars is open for debate, as long as we were there, civilian support was crucial. The billions that went to Halliburton at least were partly because they were the only company capable of doing what was necessary on a large scale in a war zone.
While I agree with your last few sentences, they would result in mostly Democrats and Progressive Republicans losing their seats. Fine with me.
Yes, Adam, we figured out you were a Paulite….
Libertarian does not mean Paulite, and I am not a supporter of Ron Paul because I do not agree with his opinions on the EPA (needs reevaluation but not elimination), ANWR (oil will run out, we need a new method of power apart from the addictions we have now), and I don’t trust the “free” market (because it has proven itself to be incapable of regulating itself, and while I don’t think current regulations are effective there needs to be some measure of protection for consumers and the ecosystem which supports us). But I do agree with a more isolationist stance along the lines of Naval projection capabilities and not bases on foreign soil.
In response to my other detractor, Haliburton isn’t the only way to handle base management- it used to be handled by the military and should be again. PMFs are also problematic, as I feel I adequately laid out in my assessment of the social contracts regarding involuntary death of individuals. I didn’t use specific numbers with regards to Haliburton and Solyndra because it dosen’t matter the amounts, the action of favoritism to fund ones own campaigns in a round about way is wrong across the board and, again, violates social contracts between the governed and the governors. The only difference between the republicans and the democrats are what they labled their cronyism: republicans called it “defense” and the democrats called it “infrastructure.” I call it unethical.
Yes I understand that pork-barrel is normally used in reference to money secured by a politician for his/her district, but I feel it is applicable to use the term for all of their constituencies, geographic and personal.
Adam is obviously libertarian. And it is the Andy’s that make me wonder whether these guys are more conservative or more suburban /pseudo-academia (also known as mental-masturbation.)
But, I could be wrong. My darlin’ insists I often am.