President Obama has appointed Debo Adegbile to replace Tom Perez as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Perez was confirmed to be Secretary of Labor without a single Republican vote. Adegbile hails from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, an organization that has pushed a radical racial agenda including attacks on election integrity measures, opposition to criminal background checks for hiring, and racial hiring quotas for state and local governments.
Here is a brief Adegbile filed on behalf of the “Black Student Alliance” arguing that a white applicant was properly denied admission to the University of Texas Law School because she was white.
While overseeing the NAACP LDF, the organization offered legal representation to Mumia Abu-Jamal, the murderer of Philadelphia police officer Danny Faulkner. (See video of LDF lawyers addressing a pro-Mumia crowd and discussing LDF’s legal representation of Mumia.)
If you thought Tom Perez was a radical, Adegbile’s background promises to bring even more racially radicalized policies to the Justice Department.
Adegbile’s name was mentioned as a possible nominee to the federal bench. Because of his advocacy for racialist policies, such a nomination would face serious confirmation difficulties. But in Eric Holder’s Justice Department, nakedly racialist policies are standard fare, and Adegbile will fit right in.
This is an an-your-face nomination. This is the White House sending a message to Republicans and conservatives that the radical racial policies of the Justice Department will continue full speed ahead. (I documented many of those pre-2011 actions in Injustice). Any thought that Obama would moderate as a lame duck with collapsing poll numbers vanishes with the Adegbile nomination.
As expected, the reaction from the civil rights industry has been glowing. A press release:
Adegbile is one of the nation’s leading civil rights attorneys. In addition to a lengthy resume of public service, he has argued two of the most important civil rights cases of the 21st century when he twice defended the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court.
One of those two cases related to Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the provision which gave the federal government the power to oversee elections in 15 states, a power it abused, and a power the Supreme Court terminated in June 2013. DOJ is currently trying to place Texas and North Carolina back under federal control.
Incidentally, Adegbile lost both of the Voting Rights Act cases he argued in the Supreme Court. Although he suffered only a partial defeat in NAMUDNO — where the Court empowered the petitioner the right to seek a bailout that Adegbile and the NAACP insisted was unavailable to entities like NAMUDNO — he ultimately experienced a devastating loss in Shelby County when the Court invalidated the coverage formula under Section 5 of the VRA as unconstitutional.
But in the Obama Justice Department, the law is not as important as the cause. And with Adegbile, the cause is racialist.
Right now, Republican Mark Obenshain is facing a dwindling lead in the race for attorney general in Virginia. Today, most counties processed provisional votes and submitted totals. Obenshain’s lead is down to just a few dozen out of over two million votes cast. (See my PJ Media piece, “Obenshain, a Reason to Vote in Virginia Tuesday.) The review isn’t over, with Fairfax County waiting until Tuesday to complete the process.
PJ Media spent 2013 reporting how Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell teamed up with the Soros-funded Advancement Project to ram through administrative changes to ensure thousands of felons would be automatically allowed to vote in this election. Senator Obenshain led GOP opposition in the Virginia Senate to the legislative change, and McDonnell’s proposal thankfully died in the Virginia House.
That didn’t stop Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. Taking a page from President Obama’s executive-order playbook, McDonnell rammed through, by edict, what the legislature would not give the governor power to do: automatically approve felons to participate in the 2013 election. The Virginia governor even put out a press release quoting the notoriously leftist Advancement Project and praising himself for teaming with the left to rush through felon voting by executive decision. Seriously.
Why would he do this? As I wrote at the Washington Times:
Republican elected officials must realize that when it comes to election process issues such as felon voting and voter photo identification laws, they are regularly outsmarted by the organized left. Republicans who support their opponents’ election law agenda will gain no friends, at least not friends they should want.
Some Republicans think they can gain love from the left. They don’t realize the left is out to destroy conservatives and the GOP, not make friends. And some Republicans start acting strangely when they are facing possible federal indictments for corruption. Remember Illinois Governor George Ryan?
Matt Vespa has this piece at PJ Tatler praising the virtues of the New Model RNC Army campaign, now being deployed in Virginia.
“They gave him a communications plan, along with ways to execute outreach into the black, Latino, and Asian communities. . . . We are in communities we’ve never been in before . . . we have conducted both mainstream and ethnic media training efforts . . . The RNC has a total of seven paid staffers dedicated to engaging minority communities and have attended numerous events on behalf of the Republican Party. The RNC has also done significant paid print, radio, and TV advertising in ethnic media outlets.”
The plan seems heavy on racial identity politics. What it lacks, perhaps, is getting Republicans and conservatives activated.
True, an anecdote does not a trend make, but here are some troubling facts.
I have voted in numerous Republican primaries in Virginia.
Number of pieces of direct mail, emails, telephone calls or door knocks I received from either the RNC, Republican Party of Virginia or the Cuccinelli campaign: Zero.
Perhaps they were too busy with ethnic media outlets.
Now, to be fair, I moved in early 2013 and thereafter changed my voter registration.
But that didn’t stop Democrats from hitting me with lots of literature and campaign contacts at my new address. In fact, I received literature and calls from the Virginia Democratic Party, the McAuliffe campaign, and various lefty groups.
All they had to do is buy an updated voter list.
One side did it. The other side apparently didn’t.
Remember that on Tuesday night if the results go badly for the GOP.
Outreach to people who never voted for a Republican won’t do much good when people who often do vote Republican are forgotten.
Let’s compare the failure to execute the run-up-the middle and simply get an updated list to contact me with what the Democrats have at their disposal.
A local election official told me that the Democrat party rejected a poll worker this fall as an insufficiently loyal democrat because the voter five years ago said in a telephone poll that they did not support the Democrat U.S. Senate nominee.
Think about that. One side doesn’t mail a current voter list, while the other side has a database so powerful they are rejecting poll officials for subversive thoughts during the Bush administration.
It’s like Terry McAuliffe has the NSA on staff. (By the way, the name of the databank is Catalist.)
Meanwhile, Republican consultants are too busy tripping over their bank accounts to play nice and cooperate to build a conservative response.
Let’s see how the Democrat-lite, ignore-the-base, watered down racial identity politics works on Tuesday for Virginia Republicans. If the GOP wins despite a 1990′s style ground game, I’ll gladly eat crow, and gladly accept campaign junk mail next year.
The Washington Post is comfortable in the role of crusader. Usually the crusade manifests itself against local Republican candidates. Now the crusade as turned against the Washington Redskins.
Not content to write about balls and strikes, wins and losses, the sportswriters at the Post now fancy themselves cultural observers and political pundits.
Chief among the crusaders are sports columnists Mike Wise and Sally Jenkins.
The pair have done the impossible. They’ve made Redskins owner Daniel Snyder look sympathetic.
Wise and Jenkins have teamed up with the familiar gang of race hustlers and identity activists to turn the Post sports section into a regular anti-Redskins crusade. They must not be familiar with the term – unsubscribe (which one can do at 202-334-6100).
Today Wise waxes on about Roger Goodell being on the “wrong side of history,” as if he is Theodore Bilbo or George Wallace.
It’s the same familiar formula: 1) Small numeric minority shakes down powerful interest in the name of race; 2) Pavlovian response from lefty media follows.
Never mind the fact that most American Indians like the name Redskins. Never mind the fact that almost 80 percent of Americans, including blacks and Hispanics, are just fine with the name.
Sally Jenkins isn’t much better. She wrote this admittedly funny but totally intellectually dishonest satire about Snyder’s effort to explain to the Redskins fan base why the name is here to stay.
Jenkins and Wise are symptomatic of what else is wrong with Washington. A small number of people who think they know better, and who possess power, seek to impose their views on the rest of the nation. They are convinced they are more enlightened than the rest of us. Their perch at the paper gives them asymmetrical leverage over the American people.
But most folks don’t think they are enlightened. Most folks think they are nuts.
Mark Levin was right when he said the only offensive part of “Washington Redskins,” is Washington.
So Hail to the Redskins from this Steelers fan. Wise and Jenkins have done the impossible. In making the Redskins the victim of yet another race hustling campaign, they’ve made them a team to cheer.
Bryan Preston has this piece about Nasty Obama People threatening CNN reporters. Bryan notes:
Carol Costello hosted a segment on the senior White House aide recently fired for — not making this up — inappropriate tweets, she admitted that the Obama administration has no problem getting “nasty” with reporters who dare to report any negative story about Obama. . . . Costello agreed with panelist Jason Johnson that the Obama administration can be thin-skinned, and said that “President Obama’s people can be quite nasty. . . . This may explain a lot about the past several years, and especially the last year. How many reporters who may have wanted to report on Fast and Furious, Benghazi and any number of stories that cast Obama in a bad light have been intimidated and threatened out of pursuing those stories?
PJ Media has been covering the nastiness of the Obama press spokespeople for years. The nastiest of the nasty is former Justice Department press flunkie Tracy Schmaler.
Schmaler developed a reputation for screaming at journalists who asked any tough questions. These included Pete Williams at NBC, Quinn Hillyer at the American Spectator and Matt Boyle at Breitbart. PJ Media covered the nastiness of Obama press flunkies here (“DOJ Shrieker in Chief”) and here and here and here. These are government employees for whom civility is not a priority, even if the President claims that it is.
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is doing all he can to make sure Virginia Republicans lose statewide election next month. If it’s not free Rolexes, free rounds of golf or having the taxpayers pay for dry cleaning for his adult children, it’s making sure felons get to vote.
The mess surrounding McDonnell is dragging down the Republican ticket where Democrat nominee Terry McAuliffe now leads Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in most polls. The sleaze in Richmond must run awfully deep for someone like McAuliffe to be leading.
This week, Bob McDonnell followed through in making sure that thousands of felons are automatically allowed to vote in November’s election. I covered McDonnell’s folly in the Washington Times, Virginia Democrats Get New Demographic: the Felon Vote:
Prohibiting felons from voting is also a moral imperative. Those who have shown contempt for criminal laws should have no voice in the process of writing them. Giving felons a say in the legislative process means laws will naturally skew more toward the criminal, to the detriment of the law-abiding citizen.
McDonnell defied the will of the Virginia House, and by executive policy, implemented a policy in 2013 that legislature specifically rejected.
Sounds like Barack Obama.
Under McDonnell’s decree, some felons have their voting rights automatically restored instead of having to undergo an individualized examination of their remorse and their conscience.
Every social science study ever produced shows that felons vote for Democrats at a rate of around 9:1. McDonnell has reinstated nearly 7,000.
Had felons been permitted to vote in every state, Republicans would have lost 3 Presidential elections they won, and control of the Senate would not have been in GOP hands for many years. That’s why Democrats are so interested in the issue.
So why would McDonnell do this?
There are a couple of reasons. First, according to many people close to McDonnell, he is obsessed with being liked, even more than being right.
But the second, and biggest, reason is that McDonnell fully misunderstands the radical racialist left. Like Republicans from decades ago, he thinks he can buy peace through concessions. He almost vetoed the Virginia voter ID law in 2012. It took a heavy lobbying effort, including from other GOP Governors, to talk McDonnell down off the ledge from a voter ID veto. He feared what the NAACP might do to him. But, as I wrote at the Times:
The NAACP and ACLU have lost the moral high ground they had a half-century ago. These “civil rights” groups have become mere cogs in the partisan electoral machine of the organized left. They support felon voting because it helps elect Democrats, not for any other reason.
These groups also have a tendency to cast aside any short-term Republican allies they can trick. Friendship, praise and higher office cannot be gained by capitulation to their agenda. Hopefully, Virginia Republicans will realize there is only peril in supporting the cause of criminals and the Democratic Party.
The Governor’s office issued a press release this week trumpeting McDonnell’s efforts to open up voting for felons. The release actually gives space for quotes from the radical Soros-funded Advancement Project. Priorities, I suppose. Yet praise elsewhere among the left for McDonnell is almost non-existent, with some saying he has not gone far enough. It’s that old familiar one-way ratchet, always seeking more from Republicans quick to cave.
According to the press release, McDonnell has even added staff to speed up the process of getting felons processed, just in time for November’s election. Again, priorities. The press release actually crows about this:
The restoration of rights division now employs six staffers, four of whom were just hired in July to implement the new system. The Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office has worked diligently with the Clerks of Court, the Supreme Court, the State Police, the State Board of Elections, the Department of Corrections and many other stakeholder groups to streamline and automate the system.
Under the old system, each felon had to make an individualized application to show they were worthy of reinstatement. Automatic redemption has no place, either in any theology, or as government policy. An individualized examination of conscience was the Commonwealth’s policy for almost a century.
If the GOP experiences a wipeout in November, especially a close one, they might thank Governor Bob McDonnell. Too many Rolexes, catered weddings, golf clubs – and ultimately – felons at the polls, may bring bad news for the Virginia GOP.
Main Justice is a barely read blog that serves as a private mouthpiece for Eric Holder’s operation. I covered their intellectually dishonest coverage of racialist policies at the Justice Department here at PJ Media.
I have just learned from James O’Keefe that he has sued Main Justice for defamation, and that they have been served.
Main Justice has covered O’Keefe’s battle with disgraced U.S. Attorney Jim Letten in New Orleans. (So has PJ Media here). O’Keefe confronted Letten about his prosecution of O’Keefe. Letten is now a dean at Tulane Law school. The federal court in New Orleans eviscerated the conduct of Justice Department lawyers under his supervision in a 129-page opinion dismissing criminal convictions against 5 New Orleans police officers.
O’Keefe is suing Main Justice for claiming he tampered with phone lines inside a U.S. Senate office. O’Keefe takes special care to release full length videos.
O’Keefe asked for a retraction for the story, but only received snark in return from Main Justice publisher Mary Jacoby.
Mary Jacoby at Main Justice doesn’t think much of the conservative media. She wrote to O’Keefe’s staff this email about O’Keefe’s efforts:
Hello Daniel –
As bone fide journalists, we strive for accuracy and will add a clarification at your request. However, please spare me the indignation – no serious person would pull this kind of stunt.
No large Washington D.C. lawfirm has lined up to represent O’Keefe, yet. That’s a benefit reserved for liberal defamation plaintiffs.
Yesterday, I asked: “Is Kirkland and Ellis Pursuing Breitbart’s Widow Pro Bono?”
Today, thanks to the work of Aaron Worthing, we learn the disgraceful answer: “Yes, and then some.”
(Read the first story: “Vampires, Shirley Sherrod Lawyers Seek to Sue Andrew Breitbart’s Widow.” We also learned yesterday that Kirkland and Ellis is attacking North Carolina Voter ID for free.)
Aaron Worthing did what no reporter appears to have done in the last couple of years — simply ask Kirkland and Ellis who is paying for the lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart, Larry O’Connor, and now Andrew’s widow, Susie.
Here’s what Worthing found:
So in the response to my letter, still on background, a person speaking for the firm stated that, yes, this was a pro-bono case. Which I have to tell you, is really odd. Ordinarily pro bono cases are about poor people, or otherwise people who have trouble standing up for themselves, or rarely people who shouldn’t have to hire lawyers — like people seeking to end discrimination.
Sherrod, despite her husband receiving $13,000,000 as part of a Pigford settlement, is getting free legal representation from Kirkland and Ellis. That Kirkland and Ellis takes on lawsuits against Breitbart’s widow and North Carolina over voter ID pro bono tells you a great deal about the firm.
Nearly 80% of America supports voter ID, including the Supreme Court. And nearly 100% of America opposes harassing widows in court.
The firm apparently thought the standing it would gain among clients and the public would be greater than the grief it would get by taking the two controversial cases. Perhaps that calculation was wrong.
Notice how a source at Kirkland and Ellis tells Worthing that the lawsuit isn’t aimed at Brietbart’s widow, but rather his estate. Aaron Worthing dispenses with that B.S. nicely by noting:
But that estate is what she and Andrew’s four children are going to live off of. You can’t pretend they aren’t endangering those children’s future.
Further, the statement that Kirkland and Ellis isn’t directing the lawsuit against the widow is an outright lie. Read the pleading that Kirkland filed, which plainly states:
Plaintiff Shirley Sherrod respectfully moves to substitute “Susannah Breitbart, as successor to Andrew Breitbart, Deceased” in place of now-deceased Defendant Andrew Breitbart.
Anyone see the word “estate” in that sentence?
And, as Worthing rightly notes, even if it did appear it wouldn’t matter. The “estate” is how Susie will feed and educate her children. Chalk up the too-clever response to Worthing by Kirkland as an example of how lawyers can become so convinced of the correctness of their position that the realities of life cannot penetrate the misconception. The same could be said of much of the culture inside the Beltway. The realities of life outside the Beltway seem to have no effect on the culture of entitlement, plenty and arrogance within.
PJ Media Rule of Law: Vampires, Shirley Sherrod Lawyers Seek to Sue Widow of Andrew Breitbart.
It turns out that the clients of Kirkland and Ellis are also indirectly supporting the attack on North Carolina’s new Voter Identification law. From the Winston Salem Journal:
Additionally within one hour of the voter suppression bill being signed earlier this year, the NC NAACP filed a suit. The Advancement Project, the Kirkland and Ellis law firm acting pro bono, Adam Stein of Chapel Hill, the former partner of the late Julius Chambers, Atty. Irv Joyner, and assisted by Atty Jamie Phillips and Atty. Al McSurley represent the NC NAACP in its suit.
How can a law firm afford to donate attorney time to an attack on election integrity laws like North Carolina voter ID?
Simple: Keep the rates of paying clients high enough so that the paying clients end up subsidizing the salaries of the attorneys working for free for the North Carolina NAACP’s attack on voter ID. Here is the complaint naming the Kirkland and Ellis lawyers attacking North Carolina voter ID.
What do we discover in the complaint? Thomas Yannucci, the same lawyer representing Shirley Sherrod in her efforts to sue Breitbart’s widow, is the same lawyer attacking North Carolina voter ID.
The pages for the other Kirkland and Ellis lawyers are here: Daniel Donovan, Susan Davies, Winn Allen, Uzoma Nkwonta, Kim Knudson, Anne Dechter and the lawyer who multitasks between attacking Breitbart and North Carolina, Thomas Yannucci.
We learn from these firm pages that the paying clients of the lawyers working pro bono include: Wyndham, Honeywell, AOL, Bayer, BP, Coca-Cola, Raytheon, Chiquita, HBO, Hershey Foods, Verizon and General Motors.
So next time you buy that Coke or Buick, remember where you money might be going.
I have this post over at Rule of Law how the wicked Shirley Sherrod is now pursuing Andrew Breitbart’s lovely widow Susie Breitbart in court. Her lawyers at Kirkland and Ellis have filed this pleading, seeking to drag Susie into the lawsuit Sherrod filed in 2011.
But Sherrod’s lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis filed this pleading seeking to drag Susie into the lawsuit. They are trying to bore into her own personal estate, the estate which will be used to raise her four fatherless children. The pleading coldly notes:
Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Mr. Breitbart was timely filed, survives his death, and may be continued against his successor. See D.C. Code § 12-101; . . . .(“Except as provided in Sections 11446, 13552, 13553, and 13554, upon the death of a married person, the surviving spouse is personally liable for the debts of the deceased spouse chargeable against the property described in Section 13551 to the extent provided in Section 13551.
So who’s paying Sherrod’s legal bills for the litigation against Susie Brietbart? Wouldn’t the media have asked by now? Curiosity about funding is not an equal opportunity question.
There are three-and-a-half possibilities for who is paying Sherrod’s bills.
The first, and most unlikely, possibility is that Shirley Sherrod is paying her own bills. You can count on two things at big law firms like Kirkland and Ellis, expensive art on the walls, and big bills. The combination of the two has led to a wipeout of once-lucrative careers at Big Law, and the wipeout or merger of many struggling Big Law firms. Like most everything else in the economy over the last decade, clients are seeking smaller, lower cost solutions with comparable effectiveness. It is highly unlikely Shirley Sherrod is paying the exceedingly large hourly rates that Kirkland still charges.
The second possibility is that Sherrod has a Sugar Daddy (definition 2). There are plenty of leftist Sugar Daddies who would relish harassing Andrew Breitbart. Some of them are wicked enough even to harass his widow. They probably haven’t read Deuteronomy’s command to not take the garment of the widow, or the call to protect the widow throughout Scripture. More likely, the wickedness of the act doesn’t trouble them. It’s Breitbart we’re talking about, and mention of his name sends them into a froth. If a Sugar Daddy is funding Sherrod’s case, then Sherrod ought to say so. She ought to confess that the lawsuit is a crusade funded by outsiders, and not about justice.
The third (and a half) possibility is that Kirkland and Ellis is funding the lawsuit against Breitbart. They might take the matter on a contingency fee. When you are finished laughing, consider the other means they can fund the lawsuit. Big Law has become notorious for helping left wing causes for free. They use the money from paying clients, like AOL, Boeing, Walgreens, Avis and others in other matters to subsidize left wing litigation. That’s how the attacks on voter ID by Kirkland and Ellis are funded. That’s how GITMO terrorists got free representation at Covington and Burling.
But don’t right wing causes also enjoy a similar subsidy?
Mark Levin threw down the gauntlet tonight on his show.
Addressing the National Park Service and Obama administration, he said:
“You lay one hand on any of these World War II vets trying to visit the World War II memorial, one hand, and I’ll have half a million people there at that memorial.”
Levin went on to talk about members of his family that fought at Iwo Jima and Guam.
Any other day, these five parking places pictured below are available for use on the George Washington Parkway near Washington D.C. The GW Parkway is a national park. There is no fee to park in them. There are no National Park Service employees who do anything at all with them. But not today. Shutdown Theatre is playing nationwide, and the barricades are props.
Today the barricades went up. Unlike any other day, today National Park Service employees had to go to these parking places and erect barricades. More time, energy and money was spent erecting barricades to create phony drama surrounding the shutdown than is spent on a normal day. Without such theatre, most Americans might not even notice that the federal government has shut down.
RNC Chairman Reince Preibus says at Breitbart:
Today Republicans won a major victory against the mainstream media.
When NBC and CNN announced their plans for pro-Hillary productions, the RNC voted to ban them from presidential primary debates. Conservatives united in calling out their blatant liberal bias and support for Hillary Clinton’s all-but-announced candidacy. Even liberal commentators’ eyes were opened to the network’s partisan actions.
After all that pressure and bad publicity, both CNN and NBC announced they were canceling their productions today.
So CNN dropped a Hillary documentary under a threat that CNN wouldn’t be allowed to participate in primary debates. Point RNC.
But there is a far bigger issue about presidential debates, and one that will continue to destroy Republican nominees in the fall of 2016 if it isn’t resolved.
Republicans on the Commission for Presidential Debates must stop agreeing to allow left wing journalists conduct the fall debates.
Consider 2012. The four debates had four moderators in total. All four were hard left leaning journalists: Jim Lehrer, Martha Raddatz, Bob Shieffer and Candy Crowley. Crowley was especially poorly behaved. Her factually inaccurate attack on Mitt Romney helped swing the debate, and the election to Obama by making Romney gun shy to talk about Benghazi – both in the debate and afterwards.
So how do four leftists get picked to moderate Presidential debates? Why not fight to include balance, or, pull out of the process.
Republicans on the Commission on Presidential Debates agreed to the four in 2012. That’s right – Obama attended Raddatz’s wedding, and then she was picked to moderate a debate. Crowley is so far in the tank for the left that Google can’t even disguise her teamwork with Team DNC.
The Republican member later had regrets that Crowley was allowed to serve as moderator, but the damage was already done.
So where is Britt Hume or Megyn Kelly when it comes to the fall Presidential debates?
I appeared on a panel with Breitbart’s Joel Pollack at last years CPAC. Joel gave some advice Republicans should heed – stop worrying about what the so-called mainstream media does. Stop giving interviews only to the New York Times. Utilize the vast emerging new media to push your message, don’t attack or shun it. Go on conservative talk radio.
Otherwise 2012 will repeat.
It’s nice that CNN is no longer going to run a documentary on Hillary that nobody would have seen anyway. But people will be watching the Presidential debates in 2016. Republicans simply cannot allow a repeat of the same debate catastrophes of the past. They have to fight where the action is. The Commission on Presidential Debates cannot be permitted to stack the deck with Martha Raddataz, and her ilk in 2016. Who moderates the fall debates has more to do with who becomes President than a Hillary documentary airing on CNN.
Someone gave me the attached RNC fundraising pitch they received in the mail. (Click PDF here).
In the fundraising pitch to a Virginia voter (and yes, it seems dot matrix printers still exist somewhere other than car rental counters), the RNC says:
Our records indicate that you are a registered Republican. [Not possible; Virginia does not have party registration.] . . . You are receiving this today because the Democrat voter-registration machine works non-stop, so the work of strengthening and growing our Party must never end. Democrats are using groups like the discredited and now-defunct ACORN to recruit tens of thousands of new Democrats in Virginia. We must match their efforts.
Where to begin?
Let’s start there in Virginia. We might not automatically, by fiat, restore the right to vote of felons after the Virginia General Assembly explicitly rejected the idea.
Too late. The Democrats now have tens of thousands of new voters they didn’t have a year ago in Virginia. So much for matching efforts.
Next, ponder the “discredited” and “now-defunct” ACORN language.
How quickly we forget how ACORN because discredited and defunct.
Answer: James O’Keefe and Andrew Breitbart.
The videos that James captured and Andrew promoted wrecked the organization and led to the defunding of the organization. It took a nearly penniless O’Keefe to cook up and accomplish what no well-funded organization had been able to do for years, and with millions: knockout the left’s registration machine.
I asked James what he thought about all the fundraising off of his efforts.
“I remember talking to Andrew Breitbart in New York about the fourth day of the ACORN story and everyone was sending blast emails fundraising off our work. We thought they were parasites,” James told me tonight.
Of course there is no rule against mentioning James O’Keefe’s success in wrecking ACORN in a fundraising letter. It just might be nice to remember that guerrilla wars to defeat the left seem to be working better than the well funded efforts these days. Giving credit to James and Andrew for wrecking ACRON might be nice too.
The Justice Department is reeling from last week’s 129 page federal court opinion vacating convictions against New Orleans police officers in a case brought by the infamous DOJ Civil Rights Division. (See PJ Media’s, ”Justice Dept. Lawyer Karla Dobinski’s Misconduct Sends Cops to Prison.”) The opinion documents the Inspector Clouseau-like investigation by the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility into DOJ lawyer misconduct, involvement of the #2 DOJ official James Cole’s office in whitewashing another internal report, and a “carnival like atmosphere” among the DOJ prosecution team that trampled on the police officer’s due process rights. A full appreciation of the misconduct cannot be had unless one takes the time to read the full 129-page opinion. It is simply the most thorough documentation of misconduct yet produced about Eric Holder’s Justice Department.
Today we are learning a bit about the DOJ’s response. Is it to fire the attorneys involved in the misconduct such as Karla Dobinski? Seemingly not, as I left a message on her fully-active voicemail asking if she is still employed for a piece I am doing for a newspaper. Plus, she is an activist so she is unlikely to get fired. Is the DOJ response to disclose fully information Judge Kurt Englehardt sought to pry out of the DOJ over months?
Of course not.
This won’t happen because right now, the DOJ staff inside the Criminal Section at the Civil Rights Division don’t think Dobinski should be fired. They sympathize with her.
Dobinski earns a base salary of $155,500, paid for by you. She has engaged in misconduct so egregious that convictions for five defendants were tossed. In any law office or state government agency, those two facts would be irreconcilable. But not in Eric Holder’s DOJ.
Instead, the response of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys is to crack down on leaks and the release of information. PJ Media has obtained emails sent by top Justice Department officials. A portion reads as follows:
[DOJ] employees have access to a variety of information that is not available to the public, like the existence of a criminal investigation, the identity of targets, or personally identifying information of fellow employees. “Non-public information” is defined as information the employee gains by reason of Federal employment and knows (or should reasonably know) has not been made available to the general public. Please remember you must safeguard the information you learn in the course of your duties at the USAO — it should not be shared with friends, family, or members of the public. Employees who disclose non-public information may be subject to discipline, up to and including removal from their position.
Seems obvious, no?
Yet in this Justice Department, the corruption and misconduct is so pervasive, that the obvious must be made explicit. I documented pervasive dishonesty, sanctions, misconduct and lawlessness inside the Civil Rights Division at DOJ in my book Injustice. PJ Media has covered the same so extensively it is impossible to catalog all of the links. (One, two, three, just for starters.) And now a federal court has scalded Holder’s operation with details so disturbing, so petty and so abusive, that whatever trace of moral authority Holder and his gang possessed, has vanished entirely.
It seems Michael Moore has worn out his welcome at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The Academy has bounced him from the documentary nominating committee. John Fund writes:
This hasn’t been a good week for radical filmmaker Michael Moore. The Hollywood Reporter revealed that he recently lost a re-election bid for his position as a governor on the Academy Award’s documentary board.
Gerald Molen, the producer of Schindler’s List and many other Hollywood films, says Moore’s loss will restore a level of balance in the consideration of political documentaries.
Of course the fact that Moore was even on the committee might help explain why the nominees for best documentary always seem to have a far left slant (except of course in the distant past when Hollywood was sane). Conservative documentaries (for which there are many) always seem to be left out, even the best ones.
Ginger Slepski was driving through Pittsburgh’s North Side when a group of black teens threw things at her car. She got out and asked them “what is your problem?”
Then they proceeded to beat her senseless, calling her a “white bitch” and other racial slurs. WPXI has the video and the story.
Remember those? Those are the ones Eric Holder made a point to mention at the NAACP convention in Orlando, blustering that he might prosecute the acquitted George Zimmerman.
Well here’s an easy case, Eric. It won’t be too hard to prove a violation of 18 USC 249 or 18 USC 245 in this context. No outrageous self-defense defenses here.
But like in all the other similar cases you refuse to prosecute, the victim here wasn’t one of “your people.” Ginger’s parents didn’t endure the sort of garbage that your wife’s parents did down south. So she isn’t entitled to equal protection of the law, right?
Make no mistake, Ginger isn’t the only victim who won’t get justice from Justice just because of her race. Neither will the parents who were beaten at the Wisconsin State Fair. Nor will the parents in Ohio who saw thugs come on their lawn shouting racial slurs before they beat them.
We get it, Eric. You can tell your friends at the Washington Post and New York Times that your Justice Department doesn’t discriminate because of the race of the victim, but we know the truth. We know that you treat some Americans as second-class citizens. And for that, you are more like one of the old segregationists than the crusader for justice you think you are.
Hans von Spakovsky tears apart the merits of the complaint the Department of Justice Voting Section has filed to stop Texas Voter ID. The complaint reads as if it was drafted by a progressive snake oil salesman. It is full of irrelevant slights of hand:
The complaint is filled with the same type of misdirection intended to distract the audience. For example, it outlines the different percentages of black, Hispanic, and white populations in Texas. But it first uses total population, which includes lots of people who aren’t eligible to vote. It then lists voting-age population percentages, which is also a largely useless figure because of the significant number of Hispanics who are not citizens and African Americans who are convicted felons, and, therefore, not eligible to vote. It finally gives the percentages by voting-age members of the franchise, after having confused this issue with information not relevant to the number of individuals affected by a voter-ID law. (This is compounded by its use of surname-analysis to identify Hispanics, a notoriously inaccurate analysis tool.)
The complaint lists the poverty levels, income data, and car-ownership rates of blacks and Hispanics in comparison with whites. It makes a big deal out of the claim that Hispanics and blacks experience poverty at higher rates than whites, but this is completely irrelevant to the voting discrimination claim in the complaint. Being poor is not a protected class under the Voting Rights Act, and the total number of poor whites in the state is actually larger than the total number of poor Hispanics and blacks. Justice is trying to claim that if a voting law somehow affects poor people more than others (and it has no evidence that is true), because of racially disparate poverty rates, it is voting discrimination and therefore violates Section 2. Holder is trying to bootstrap an unprotected class of voters onto a class of voters protected under the law.
The progressive narratives would have never been allowed in a pleading filed by the Voting Section during any previous administration. Back then, the managers had sense, or at least a measure of a backbone to resist such nonsense as mentioning car ownership in a voting case.
Meredith Bell-Platts: The other new deputy chief hired by the Voting Section, Meredith Bell-Platts, also comes from the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, where she, too, spent nearly 10 years. Much of her time there was devoted to blasting voter ID requirements, which she claimed were motivated by people who do not want to see blacks vote (an issue on which she consistently lost in court). Before arriving at the ACLU, Ms. Bell-Platts was a founding member of the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, a publication whose stated “mission is to explore the impact of gender, sexuality, and race on both the theory and practice of law” and thereby “complement a long tradition of feminist scholarship and advocacy at the [Georgetown] Law Center.”
Anna Baldwin: While all of the new trial attorneys hired into the Voting Section have streaks of radicalism, few can match Ms. Baldwin. A financial contributor to the Obama presidential campaign, she clerked for two liberal Clinton appointees on the federal bench and then worked briefly at Jenner & Block (a D.C. law firm which has been a major feeder of Democratic political appointees to the Obama administration), where she primarily pursued liberal positions in pro bono litigation. During law school, she interned at the International Labor Rights Fund and Women’s Agenda for Change.
Prior to that, Baldwin served for three years as field coordinator for Equality Florida, where she “coordinated lobbying and state legislative policy work on behalf of Florida’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities.” Meanwhile, in her undergraduate days at Harvard, she was a member of the “Queer Resistance Front” and was frequently covered in the Harvard Crimson for her radical antics. A review of these campus newspaper articles suggests that Ms. Baldwin will have to work very hard to separate her activist politics from her role as an apolitical civil servant. Then again, if she takes her cues from most of her Voting Section colleagues, she won’t even need to attempt such separation. As the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case showed, partisanship and law enforcement are one and the same in Holder’s Civil Rights Division.
Daniel Freeman: Mr. Freeman comes to the Voting Section following a fellowship at the New York Civil Liberties Union. He previously interned at the ACLU, where he assisted the organization with its efforts to attack the Bush administration’s national security policies. He also helped to challenge the “state secrets privilege” and to support the rights of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay during an internship at Human Rights First.
On his resume, Freeman proudly notes his membership in the liberal American Constitution Society, as well as his service as co-chair of the Yale Law School Democrats. Of course, being a member of the American Constitution Society does not bar you from federal employment. Yet the Bush administration was castigated for hiring lawyers who were members of the Federalist Society. Incidentally, Mr. Freeman is helping lead the Voting Section’s review of redistricting submissions from the state of Alabama.
Elizabeth Westfall: Last, but certainly not least, is Ms. Westfall. According to the Federal Election Commission website, she contributed nearly $7,000 to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential election campaign, contributed another $4,400 to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, contributed $2,000 to Wesley Clark’s presidential campaign in 2004, contributed $3,000 to John Kerry’s presidential campaign and compliance fund in 2004, contributed $500 to former Senate Democratic Majority Leader Tom Daschle’s PAC in 2004, and contributed $2,000 to Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign in 2000.
In addition to this incredible funding of Democratic candidates, Westfall worked for six years at the far-left Advancement Project, directing its Voter Protection Program and managing its litigation and advocacy activities. She also previously served as a staff attorney at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights in its Fair Housing Group, and worked on the Hill as a legislative assistant to then-Congressman Bill Richardson (D-NM).
On Westfall’s self-drafted Harvard alumni biography, she notes that she has testified before the U.S. Congress about supposed “barriers” to voter registration, “unwarranted” purging of the voter rolls, and voter caging. While those subjects may sound benign, in fact, the Advancement Project and the Lawyers Committee claim that common-sense reforms like voter ID or requiring proof of citizenship are “barriers” to voting and registration and that removing voters who have moved or otherwise become ineligible to vote is “unwarranted purging.”
“Vote caging,” an imaginary crime the Left dreamed up several years ago, faults any efforts by private parties to challenge the eligibility of voters when first-class mail sent to their registration addresses is returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable because they no longer live there. This despite the fact that federal law specifically authorizes election officials to use the USPS for that very purpose. Just the kind of neutral, detached attorney a state wants reviewing its redistricting submissions and applying the heavy hand of the federal government in voting rights enforcement actions.
Yesterday, Wisconsin Representative Jim Sensenbrenner shared a podium with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus at an RNC event to dovetail with the weekend commemoration of the March on Washington. You can watch grainy video of the event here.
There, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) had this to say about federal oversight of elections under the Voting Rights Act, matters which would include Texas Voter ID. From the Washington Post:
Sensenbrenner said he wants to fix the law so that it is immune to court challenges.
“The first thing we have to do is take the monkey wrench that the court threw in it, out of the Voting Rights Act, and then use that monkey wrench to be able to fix it so that it is alive, well, constitutional and impervious to another challenge that will be filed by the usual suspects.”
The “usual suspects” would be states like Texas and Attorneys General like Alan Wilson (SC). Wisconsin, Sensenbrenner’s home, was never covered by the preclearance obligations of Section 5. Federal preclearance powers were abused to the tune of millions of dollars in court sanctions, were used to block election integrity measures like Texas Voter ID and Georgia citizenship verification, and have seen employees inside the DOJ who administered the law commit perjury – and remain unpunished.
When PJ Media reported that efforts were afoot inside the RNC to re-impose federal oversight, RNC officials became volcanic. They sent broadcast emails to conservative bloggers attacking PJ Media and vowing not to cooperate with publications who use anonymous sources and a nom de guerre for writers who are in positions that do not permit their identity to be known – a practice used at both Breitbart and Hot Air also.
Yesterday’s event captured on video provides some factual context to the dispute.
For additional factual context for Tatler’s post, I posted this history of the RNC’s involvement in promoting Section 5 federal oversight. RNC involvement was essential to renewing the federal oversight obligations in 2006, as I write here. The history of involvement, reports from PJ Tatler, and now yesterday’s event with unambiguous statements provide context to the issue of Republican involvement in attacks on election integrity and promotion of absolute federal power over state elections.
Colin Powell recently attacked election integrity and claimed there was no voter fraud. That’s dishonest and false, but it was good enough to get a spot on CBS’s Face the Nation this Sunday. His ticket to the show:
You can say what you like, but there is no voter fraud.
Colin Powell should learn a bit about people like Melowese Richardson, Lessadolla Sowers, Sonia Solis, Eric Haynes, Linda Wells, Giancarlo Sopo, John Moretina, Clara Moretina, Ernest Johnson, Kaarbo (aka Shawn Marie Melton), Jose Antonio Ramirez-Velasquez, Michael Marshall, Marguerite Kloos, Dilsa Maria Saddler, Rep. Stephen “Stat” Smith (D-Mass.), Leonard Brown, Chad Gigowski, Andrew Shepherd, Brittany Rainey, Caitlin Haycock, Brian Uecker, Fozia Nawaz, Bill Di Giorgio, Anna Nicole Nelson, Carlton Kaarbo and Richard Alverson.
And these are just charges and convictions over the last few months. But I’ll bet Colin Powell never heard of any of these criminals. He’s simply in service of the Democratic Left now, and that gets him a spot on CBS’s Face the Nation.
Of course CBS’s Face the Nation will have someone on knowledgeable in election law or voter fraud (as opposed to Powell the part timer), right?
Of course not. CBS is part of the Democrat narrative machine. Dissent is not tolerated, like at MSNBC. I witnessed this firsthand when CBS’s Face the Nation did a Sunday segment about my allegations in the New Black Panther case, but didn’t have me on. CBS Evening News producers even spiked a story that Jan Crawford had produced about the New Black Panther dismissal.
Instead, CBS will pile on this Sunday with more opponents of election integrity to possibly echo Powell. Rep. John Lewis and Mayor Cory Booker will join Powell. None of them will mention the criminality in American elections listed above. None of them will spout anything but leftist orthodoxy if they talk about elections.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is the law which bans intentional racial discrimination in voting, or, bans laws which have the result of racial discrimination. The DOJ action makes it less likely that Congress will amend Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, and thereby put Texas and other states back under federal oversight, oversight which the Supreme Court ended in June. Like a thug, Holder throws in a threat to other states about more actions coming:
The Department of Justice announced today that it will file a new lawsuit against the State of Texas, the Texas Secretary of State, and the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety over the State’s strict voter photo identification law (SB 14). The United States’ complaint seeks a declaration that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Separately, the Department is filing a motion to intervene as a party and a complaint in intervention against the State of Texas and the Texas Secretary of State in the ongoing case of Perez v. Perry (W.D. Tex.), which concerns the state’s redistricting laws. The United States had already filed a statement of interest in this case last month. Today’s action represents a new step by the Department in this case that will allow the United States to formally present evidence about the purpose and effect of the Texas redistricting plans.
“Today’s action marks another step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights. The Department will take action against jurisdictions that attempt to hinder access to the ballot box, no matter where it occurs. We will keep fighting aggressively to prevent voter disenfranchisement. We are determined to use all available authorities, including remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act, to guard against discrimination and, where appropriate, to ask federal courts to require preclearance of new voting changes. This represents the Department’s latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last.”
Once upon a time, in another era, the Justice Department didn’t make threats. It didn’t threaten or boast about future litigation it had neither approved nor filed. But these days, Holder’s Justice Department is all about threats, boasts and political mobilization. The case today was about mobilizing the Democrat base before the 2014 midterms, and little else.
PJ Media has led the way covering military voting issues over the last two federal election cycles. Usually, America pays attention to the disenfranchisement of military voters the last few months before an election, but Americans and members of Congress should pay attention right now. Decisions now being made at the Pentagon by top brass, including Undersecretary Jennifer Wright, will determine whether military voters in 2014 get to vote and to participate. The Pentagon is preparing to hire a new director of the office responsible for helping military voters.
The Pentagon office in charge of military voting (FVAP) has been an embarrassment over the last two election cycles. For example, federal law requires every single military installation to have a voting assistance office to help servicemembers vote. Has the Pentagon complied with this law? Of course not. A Defense Department inspector general report found that fewer than half of the installations provide the mandated service.
As I note here, “Will Military Voters Get a New FVAP or Stale FVAP?“:
What Undersecretary Jennifer Wright and other Pentagon leaders do in the next few months will determine if the administration finally complies with a law passed in 2009, and whether military voters get a meaningful opportunity to participate in the next election. Actual participation of military voters in the 2010 and 2012 election, as measured by cast ballots, was a joke. Prisoners in Vermont participated at higher rates than the enlisted serving overseas.
The problems at FVAP are a caricature of government mismanagement:
Leadership at FVAP has focused entirely on bureaucratic nonsense, trying to look good instead of be good. For example, a management consultant paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by FVAP advised staff to, “make Paddy (Paddy McGuire, Deputy Director of Election Official Assistance) look good, and you’ll make Bob (Bob Carey, former Director of FVAP) look good. That is all you have to do.” Apparently, FVAP staff took this advice to heart, as members of Paddy McGuire’s Election Official Assistance Team frequently obstruct projects by refusing tasks, making a game out of getting others to do their work. No surprise that one of Mr. McGuire’s new ideas was to hire a former employee of his, now a friend and consultant. One might wonder what kind of consultant would be eager to be paid thousands of dollars plus expenses to conduct a staff retreat titled, “How to Get Along with Paddy.“
Paddy McGuire, as you could have guessed, is a partisan Democrat who just happens to be burrowed into the Pentagon to “help” military voters:
Consider this quote from an LA Times article in 2000, “McGuire is a political hack. This is not a title to be conferred lightly. In political country, hack is an honorific, a term of respect earned along with the frequent flier miles.” McGuire has hired three employees as Program Analysts since 2010, and promoted one to a higher status as Policy Analyst. Two were Democrats, one a youth activist, that one promoted to Policy Analyst. FVAP should not be McGuire’s personal fiefdom, where he can hire young, inexperienced staff who mostly just make him look good, adore him, and serve as party loyalists. Part of the problem at FVAP is there has never been a cadre of full time employees with election administration experience. The hapless Paddy McGuire served as a de facto political appointee. Paddy McGuire, in his revealing admission to the LA Times (Aug. 13, 2000), stated his qualification for a patronage job at the Oregon Fish and Game Department as having fishing and hunting licenses. Having someone with election administration experience at FVAP is important, as FVAP’s mission is to make certain military and overseas voters can vote. In order to vote, one must register. Thus registration and voting need to be understood by any election administrator, something FVAP just doesn’t seem to understand. One could make a case for having all positions at FVAP require election administration experience. One could also make a case for having members of the military serving as staff at FVAP.
The biggest problem with military voting is that the Pentagon has resisted implementing the law requiring military assistance at all installations. Following the law, and also registering military voters at intake upon transfer to a new assignment, is the way to fix the military voting problem. Having partisan Democrats running FVAP hurts military voting and ensures those solutions won’t be implemented. Will Republicans in Congress make excuses for the mismanagement, or conduct oversight? What happens remains to be seen. We’ll learn a lot about 2014 military voting rights soon when the Pentagon names the new FVAP director.
It’s Sunny at the White House! But not in Egypt, if you are a Christian or a Franciscan nun. All over the country, Christian churches are being burned, Christians murdered, and nuns paraded in the streets as “prisoners of war.”
The “war”: this can only mean a war of Islam vs. Christianity, right? What other “war” could they be prisoners of? (Their words, not mine.) The Muslim Brotherhood and their thug adherents are conducting a war of genocide against Christians, trying to erase the Copts – one of the oldest Christian groups in the world – from the land.
Once upon a time in America, the American president would have stood before the world, over and over again, and provided a moral counterweight to this evil. The great figures of the 20th century became great by denouncing evil and condemning genocidal and religious persecution: Reagan, Churchill, Wojtyla.
But Obama is no Wojtyla. He has remained nearly silent on the Muslim Brotherhood’s bloody war on Egypt’s Christians. The martyrs pile up; he plays golf.
The thugs rampaging through Egyptian churches, you see, are Obama’s thugs. He destabilized Egypt by giving the green light to Hosni Mubarak’s fall. After all, Mubarak was an American stooge, a puppet, a toy of imperial America and all that left-wing drool Obama has subscribed to since he was writing articles in college denouncing the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe. Now his thugs rampage through holy places, destroying.
This is nothing new. Evil comes in many forms across the centuries, but they always are obsessed with destroying Christian churches. Whether the mob followed Lenin, Calles, or Robespierre, the results were always the same: desecration and murder. We are witnessing the 2013 version.
That an American president has remained almost silent only adds to the disgrace. Perhaps that first domino Obama sent tumbling keeps him quiet.
From the video found at the London Telegraph about the violent “day of rage” in Egypt. A Muslim brotherhood rioter has an interesting wardrobe.
I admit I laughed when I read the open letter that Patrick Pexton, the Washington Post’s ex-ombudsman, sent to incoming owner Jeff Bezos demanding that he fire Jennifer Rubin, the paper’s only full-time conservative writer (and former PJ Media writer). Pexton claims he doesn’t want her fired because she is conservative, but because “she’s just plain bad.” Of course, he then complains that she supposedly “parrots and peddles every silly right-wing theory to come down the pike,” which sure sounds like he is criticizing her because she is a conservative.
This is the same publication that employs snarky ideological clowns like Greg Sargent and Ezra Klein. But the Left has never been a big fan of diversity of opinion, going back at least a century.
Pexton also complains that Rubin is “the No. 1 source of complaint mail,” which is no surprise given the leftist readers of the WP, which in essence acts as the Obama administration’s company newsletter. Apparently, getting criticized by the rabid intolerant Left is grounds for termination at the WP.
But if you take the text of his complaint letter and simply substitute the Washington Post and all of its liberal columnists and reporters for Rubin, and “left” for “right,” it sounds like a perfect description of the newspaper and its biased coverage and editorial page:
“ [The WP] parrots and peddles every silly [left]-wing theory to come down the pike…. [The WP’s] analysis of the conservative movement, which is a worthwhile and important beat that the Post should treat more seriously on its national pages, is shallow and predictable. [The editorial page’s] columns, at best, are political pornography; they get a quick but sure rise out of the [left], but you feel bad afterward.
And [the WP] is often wrong, and rarely acknowledges it. [The WP] was oh-so-wrong about [Barack Obama], week after week writing embarrassing flattery about his 2012 campaign, calling almost every move he made brilliant…[The WP] was wrong about [add your own list of the many times the WP has been wrong]…. And does [the WP] apologize? Nope.
Pexton must have been looking in the mirror when he wrote his letter.
I recently told Washington Post columnist Dan Balz in the Fox News greenroom that I use the paper for compost. He eagerly agreed with that use for the newspaper, though not for the same reasons I did, I would suspect.
Maryland state election official Mary Cramer Wagner has been told about dead voters on Maryland rolls, she just isn’t going to do anything about it. So she tells the Southern Maryland News.
Election Integrity Maryland sent Wagner’s office a list of 1,100 dead voters based on public records searches like the Social Security Death Index. Instead of doing anything about it, Maryland election officials are keeping the dead voters on the rolls. Southern Maryland News:
Mary Cramer Wagner, the director of the voter registration division of the Maryland State Board of Elections, said she was “incensed” by Election Integrity Maryland’s accusations.
She said her office has investigated the latest list that Kelleher’s organization had given her.
If the elections board mails an official election item to a voter and it comes back stamped “nonforwardable,” the office sends another piece to confirm the voter’s status, she said. If there is no response on that mailing, the voter goes into “inactive” status, she said.
If the voter then does not vote in two federal elections, he or she is moved to “canceled” status, she said.
An inactive voter has to verify her status before she can vote. A canceled voter is no longer eligible to vote.
“Unless I get that information [that a voter has died] from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or a family member, I can’t make the assumption they’re dead,” Wagner said.
Wagner is wrong. A dead voter can be removed immediately from the rolls. No waiting period is required under federal law. If the voter is dead, the registration may be cancelled, and must be cancelled.
The Federal National Voter Registration Act does NOT permit removal only when the Maryland “Department of Mental Health and Hygiene or a family member” tells the election official that the voter is dead. The law requires the removal of dead voters, period. If Maryland election officials are aware of dead voters on the rolls, and refuse to remove them, they are violating federal law. Any Maryland law or policy that permits dead voters to remain on the rolls is inconsistent with NVRA.
Maryland’s refusal to comply with Federal election law seems to invite a lawsuit against Wagner’s agency, if someone would only step up to the plate and sue Wagner’s agency.
PJ Media has covered the GOP role in placing and keeping states under federal receivership when it comes to control of their elections. I reported here on the long, and recent, history of RNC support for federal oversight of state election law changes under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
That the RNC continued to support federal oversight one way or another over the past few years was no surprise to me or anyone else who has closely followed the issue . . . Whether this RNC activity ended after the PJ Tatler story was released on Friday, or when the Supreme Court ruled in June, or sometime before is unclear. Yes, the RNC really did support federal preclearance oversight of state elections, just as Eric Holder does now. When this support ended is an unanswered question after the RNC on Friday unequivocally stated it opposes any fix to Section 4 that would place states such as Texas, South Carolina, and Virginia back under a federal boot. That’s good news.
As far as I know, the RNC has not answered the question when support ended for federal oversight of state elections. (Obviously when the RNC answers the question, PJ Media will publish it in full.)
Add Alberto Gonzales to the list of Republicans to support federal control of state election laws, a goal shared by Eric Holder. In an interview with government funded radio KUHF-FM, Gonzales became the first Republican to advocate for resurrected federal oversight of state elections through a Congressional fix.
I think the best outcome here is for Congress to pass legislation to update the formula in Section 4. That then makes Section 5, once again, enforceable, and the Department of Justice has the preclearance authority that it had before the Shelby case.
A couple of side notes. Gonzales makes a number of errors in the interview which are relevant to whether federal oversight should be renewed. First of all, he says:
But those [remaining laws] are much harder for the department, because what it does, it requires the department to wait until the laws are actually passed. They go into effect, and the department has to go in and show that, in fact, the intent of the law was to discriminate based upon race. The standard is much easier under Section 5, and that’s why the decision in the Shelby case was extremely important in terms of civil rights enforcement.
It is inaccurate to say that the Justice Department must prove racial intent under the remaining laws (including Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act). Proving racial intent is a high hurdle, and to claim that the DOJ must leap that hurdle creates the inference that a Congressional fix is needed. The hurdle is not as high as Gonzales claims in the interview. The DOJ need only demonstrate racially discriminatory results under Section 2 for a valid claim, an easier burden. Pay attention to advocates of renewed federal oversight of state elections who make inaccurate statements to support federal power.
Gonzales is currently in private practice.
Two important developments this morning. First: Attorney General Eric Holder will announce that the Justice Department will initiate broad nationwide attacks on election integrity measures like Voter ID using the remaining portions of the Voting Rights Act. Last month, the Supreme Court struck down the 1965 triggers that forced 15 states to submit election law changes to Washington D.C. for federal approval.
Second: despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Justice Department announced it will try to recapture Texas under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by showing the state continues to act with a racially discriminatory intent when passing voting laws.
Some of Holder’s reaction is because dozens of highly paid federal employees are now idled. James Buchanan won the Nobel Prize in economics by explaining Holder’s actions as public choice theory — bureaucrats announce policies to help bureaucrats, even if disguised as an act inspired by a public purpose.
For the last few weeks, Voting Section employees have taken extended coffee breaks, and even more extended lunches. But there was hope — outgoing Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez referred to the state of Louisiana as the “full employment for Voting Section lawyers state.”
That means Governor Bobby Jindal can expect more targeting by the DOJ Voting Section.
But this announcement is all about the midterm elections. Obama wants the House back, and the Justice Department is again being turned into a political weapon using the cloak of civil rights. This has become the new civil rights model. Because Democratic interests are so perfectly aligned with the civil rights establishment — in no small measure because of extreme bloc voting by American blacks — the DOJ is now an arm of the DNC.
Will states have the competence and ability to withstand Holder’s attack? There are ways. Whether they will use them remains to be seen.
Texas AG Tweets At Eric Holder: If It’s War You Want, It’s War You’ve Got (Update: Gov. Perry Responds)
One of the most strategically significant battles of the Pacific began on this day, July 24, 1944 – the Battle of Tinian. Nearly 30,000 Marines landed on this small island and faced over 8,000 Japanese soldiers. Within a week, nearly every Japanese soldier would be dead, and Boeing’s new long range bomber, the B-29 Superfortress, would enjoy airstrips within range of the Japanese mainland, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Battle of Tinian was part of the campaign in the Northern Marianas Islands. The United States bypassed Japanese-held islands throughout the Pacific to secure these islands. By 1944, airpower had changed everything, and possessing islands across the Pacific was less important that possessing islands close enough for the B-29 to reach Japan.
The battle for Tinian island was preceded by the bloody battle of Saipan, just a few miles north of Tinian, where a staggering 3,400 Americans and 30,000 stubborn Japanese died. The Battle of Guam occurred simultaneously and cost another 1,750 American lives.
Approximately 5,500 Americans died to secure the three Northern Marianas islands of Saipan, Tinian and Guam in the summer of 1944.
For this heavy price, the United States obtained a series of air bases to send swarms of B-29 Superfortressess to decimate the Empire of Japan into a forced surrender. From Saipan, Guam and Tinian, B-29′s obliterated Japanese cities, one after another, after another, including the firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945. But even after the Emperor personally inspected the total devastation of Tokyo, he refused to surrender.
American prisoner of war Louis Zamperini tells the story of seeing graffiti scrawled across the ruins of buildings near the town of Omori where he was imprisoned: B Niju Ku. From Unbroken:
The first character was simple enough, the English letter B. Louie knew that niju meant twenty and ku meant nine, though he didn’t know that ku carried another meaning: pain, calamity, affliction.
B-29′s from Saipan, Tinian and Guam devastated Japan for months, yet the Japanese wouldn’t surrender. So Enola Gay departed Tinian Island’s North Field en route to Japan in the dead of night on August 5, 1945 – and the world would never be the same.
Tinian is part of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, an American flagged territory. Today, North Field from the air looks like a series of overgrown hedgerows – abandoned with only echoes of human involvement. The bomb bay is preserved, but I had to ask someone what the strange formations were I had seen on final approach by air into Saipan. The sacrifices made in the summer of 1944 ended a war, and changed the history of the world, in hindsight, for the better.
“Barry Soetoro” is a registered voter in the District of Columbia with a White House address according to the D.C. Board of Elections.
According to a search at the D.C. Board of elections using the search terms Barry Soetoro, President Obama’s date of birth and the zip code of 20500, a registered voter of that name is registered to vote at the White House for D.C. elections. Barry Soetoro is a name that President Obama has used in the past.
Did President Obama submit this registration, or is it a fraud? Who knows? Obtaining the actual registration forms (or on-line) submitted to the D.C. election’s board might answer the question. In my view, it is worse if it is a fraud because it illustrates the ease at which one can trick the system. Or perhaps, President Obama wants out of crime-infested Chicago after his term is up and registered using his old name. I’ll go with option 1, the fraud.
Much bluster has come from Eric Holder in the past week about civil rights charges against George Zimmerman. As I have written, the Justice Department has a high hurdle to bring such charges under two possible statutes (18 USC 245 and 18 USC 249), largely because there is no evidence Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin with the requisite racial intent or motivation.
But can the same be said of the bounty the New Black Panthers placed on the seizure of the lawfully free man, George Zimmerman?
18 USC 245 says:
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with . . . any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been . . . traveling in or using any facility of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air.
The Justice Department has successfully advanced, under this law, a “public streets” theory. That is, a citizen is free merely to be in public and free from attacks and intimidation. Like in the renewed civil rights hunt for Zimmerman by Holder, racial motivation is an element.
Except with the New Black Panthers, their racial motivation is on open display. There is no dearth of evidence. The FBI has not already precluded it.
So, here are the elements.
Attempted interference with George Zimmerman’s liberty by offering a bounty for his seizure. Check.
Interference with George Zimmerman because he is not black, and/or is a “white Hispanic.” Check.
Seizure of George Zimmerman while he travels in public. Check.
Eric, if you are looking for an easier civil rights case, it is time to look at the New Black Panther bounty on George Zimmerman. You can even create an email NewBlackPantherThugs@USDOJ.gov.
Of course we know what’s in your wallet. So we aren’t expecting you to suddenly care about New Black Panther crimes.
UPDATE: The Latin Times story is dated July 18, 2013. The video linked in the story is older. The federal statute of limitations is five years.
I’ll be testifying to the House Judiciary Committee today about the Shelby decision on the Voting Rights Act and what Congress should do, if anything.
Here is my written testimony.
The portion of the Voting Rights Act that was struck down was used to attack election integrity laws around the country. It was also used to abuse federal power. From my testimony:
A 2009 objection in Kinston, North Carolina, shows the outrageous, abusive and legally indefensible positions the Voting Section will adopt using Section 5. Kinston, a majority black jurisdiction, in a referendum decided to dump partisan elections for town office and move to nonpartisan elections. The Voting Section, exploiting the burden shift and plain requirement that Kinston prove the absence of a negative, objected to the change. The objection was explicitly based on the morally and legally indefensible position that black voters would not know for whom to vote if the word “Democrat” was not next to a candidate’s name.
The legally indefensible abuse of power in the Kinston and Georgia redistricting objections are just a couple of many others. Congress actually relied on some of these abusive and meritless objections when Congress reauthorized Section 5 in 2006. These abusive and meritless objections polluted the record in 2006, but no plaintiff ever challenged them, and Congress took no testimony regarding their merits.
You might think that the House will block efforts to resurrect these abusive policies. You’d be wrong.
Congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner and Eric Cantor have indicated that they are open to passing new triggers that broadly impose burdens on some states and not others. That’s a mistake. Congress can address this problem without resorting to obsolete over-inclusive triggers. It can rely on Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act to grab states and force federal oversight of election changes after those states violate the law. The Left uses Section 5 oversight to attack election integrity laws. It’s time that House Republicans recognize it’s not 2006 anymore, and certainly not 1964.
Randolph refused to pay a dry cleaning bill. When police arrived, he flipped out and resisted arrested according to the charges.
His defense lawyers have a novel excuse – the diabetes made him behave badly.
Government sources are telling PJ Tatler the same thing that Tony Lee is reporting over at Breitbart – Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is swirling the drain. Lee reports that a resignation is Bob McDonnell’s future.
Tatler sources say that the FBI is getting close to putting McDonnell away for shady deals with a man who paid for his daughter’s wedding, and much much more, including a “gift” of a Rolex watch to his wife, but worn by McDonnell. Other reports have state employees running personal errands for the Governor and McDonnell’s kids raiding the Governor’s Mansion pantry for food and cookware. McDonnell also used taxpayer funds to pay for dog vitamins, sunscreen and for dry cleaning for his family.
Perhaps this explains McDonnell’s sudden flirtation with the George Soros funded left. McDonnell has fast tracked approving felon voting in Virginia, a position likely to cost Republicans future elections in the state. That’s why Virginia Republicans in the legislature rejected his bad idea. McDonnell, with the close collusion of vote fraud deniers at the Advancement Project and his Secretary of the Commonwealth Janet Vestal Kelly are collaborating with the Left to fast track felon voting. If McDonnell resigns, or is indicted by a federal grand jury, that might derail his felon voting proposal.
Last week the Supreme Court invalidated the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act. It ruled that the coverage formulas were outdated and 15 states no longer needed approval from Washington D.C. for any election change.
The lawless response of Virginia Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine?
States should keep submitting changes to Eric Holder anyhow. Law doesn’t matter. Northern Neck News:
In another official statement, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va) said: “The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the validity of the Voting Rights Act preclearance requirement but specify that Congress must grapple anew with the appropriate geographic application of the technique raises serious concerns, particularly with regard to how voting rights will be protected in the interim in places where discrimination still exists.”
Kaine added: “I would advocate that jurisdictions continue to submit voting changes to the Department of Justice for preclearance as a sign to their own constituents that they are committed to ensuring equal voting rights.”
This is typical of the lawlessness that infests the DOJ Voting Section, where law is a mere suggestion, not a rule. The idea that states and localities would continue to subject themselves to DOJ power and abuse shows that Democrats like Kaine are less interested in the Constitution and more interested in preserving power in Washington D.C.