BLACK PANTHERS: Former DOJ Attorney Makes Explosive Accusations

If anyone had any doubt whether this administration is all about race and overturning the constitution for their social justice, what has just happened in the United States Department of Justice should open anyone's eyes. The dismissal of the Black Panthers lawsuit was purely political and racial -- not the rule of law.  It's payback time.

Voter's rights have been drastically compromised, and it is apparent that this administration is working against the Voting Rights Act of 1965, specifically Section 11 - Voter Intimidation. As civil rights attorney, Mr. Bull, said: "for the first time in our lives, the administration is protecting the abusers instead of the voters, ...because they wanted to maximize the vote".

It is outrageous that the United States Department of Justice decides right or wrong based on race, and not the rule of law. They report .... you decide.

A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administrations's handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.

Fox News exclusive: DOJ attorney quits and becomes whistleblower in New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.

Former DOJ Attorney Makes Explosive Accusations
PART 1, June 30, 2010



Adams: DOJ's Handling of Case 'Constitutes Corruption'
PART 2, July 1, 2010



Civil Rights Attorney on Accusations vs. DOJ
July 1, 2010

THE SILVER LINING OF THE LEFT IN POWER

With all the 'change' that has been thrown at us this year, [because you never want to waste a crisis], wouldn't it be ironic that all this would actually work in our favor? Life is full of ironies, and we could use a break right about now.

Think how different life is now, than it was about 18 months ago. Speaking personally, there have been more changes, frustrations, disappointments, and tears during that time, than in my entire life. But, look at how many people have become involved -- involved in researching, reading, conversing, educating, and contacting our government.

We have come a long way in a very short time, and this piece by Dennis Prager is comforting, as he has a tendency to do:


The Silver Lining of the Left in Power
by Dennis Prager, November 17, 2009

Of course, all one had to do was look at California and see how a left-wing legislature brought the country's largest state economy to near insolvency and bankruptcy, chased away many of its most productive citizens, and wasted tens of billions of dollars thanks in large measure to union domination of the state's politics.

But most Americans do not observe other states. Most Americans are preoccupied with their lives and, unfortunately, with what is on television.

Now, this has all changed. Americans are watching California enacted on the national stage.

And it is scaring all but the ideologically committed left -- a rather small, if profoundly influential and powerful, minority. This is why last week, Gallup reported an extraordinarily dramatic and quick shift of independent voters' electoral preferences. In the Gallup Poll's words: "Over the course of the year, independents' preference for the Republican candidate in their districts has grown, from a 1-point advantage in July to the current 22-point gap."

In half a year, there has been a 23 percent shift from Democrats to Republicans among independent voters. And nothing particularly bad had occurred -- no further economic meltdown, no terrorist attack from abroad (the Poll preceded the Fort Hood attack).

Now Americans see the left's policies for what they are:

1. The left wants America to abandon its defining commitment to individualism and replace it with a European-style nanny, or welfare, state. At most Americans' core is an abiding belief that we are supposed to take care of ourselves, our families and our neighbors, and not rely on the state to do so.

2. The left is naive about evil. Most Americans deemed Communism evil; the left ridiculed President Ronald Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and often undermined the fight against the Communist world. So, too, the left is naive about Islamic terror and undermines the fight against it.

The smoking gun was the nearly universal denial by the left that his Islamic beliefs had anything to do with Maj. Nidal Hasan's mass murder of fellow servicemen at Fort Hood. One of many examples was this reaction to the shootings by Evan Thomas, Editor at Large at Newsweek: "I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label (Muslim) attached to him, it will get the right wing going..."

3. The left is more interested in redistributing wealth than in creating it. This should have been as obvious to Americans as the brightness of the sun. Finally, Americans are coming to realize that the left's goal is now, as it always has been, equality, not prosperity.

4. The left is far more interested in power than the right is. This, too, should have been self-evident, but finally, people are realizing that those who are preoccupied with creating an ever-expanding state are obviously far more interested in amassing power than those who want a smaller state.

5. The left is preoccupied with America being loved, and in pursuit of that end, compromises some of America's core values. Examples abound here, too. To cite a few: the Obama administration's neglect of those in Iran risking their lives for freedom in that tyranny; the administration's refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama when the Tibetan leader visited Washington, lest the president annoy China's dictators; the American government siding with Hugo Chavez against the Honduran government, which had legally removed a Chavez clone from the Honduran presidency; and the president's obsequious apologies for America wherever he goes.

A motto of my radio show and of my life is "Clarity is our friend." It is certainly so here. Clarity about the left will be a blessing to America.


Read more Dennis Prager here.

THE 'COSTS' of MEDICAL CARE

As most Americans deal with the sting of Saturday night, they are gearing up to fight again. A battle was lost, based on deceit known as the Stupak amendment, already showing signs of being reversed, and the ink isn't even dry.

In his pitch before the House vote Saturday night, Obama warned Democrats: “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit [Democratic voters] and it will encourage the extremists.”

So now the commander-in-chief refers to his fellow Americans as extremists, teabag, anti-government citizens. Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks states:

We are far ahead of where we should be given the power Democrats have over America. But as we like to say at FreedomWorks: Government goes to those who show up. You have run to the sound of the guns, time and again in this most important fight over the future of America. Let's finish the battle, and bury the idea of government-run health care once and for all.

If you have any doubt that we can stop this, remember:

• We kept them from passing the bill in July before anyone could read it.

• We let them know what we thought about Washington all month long in August.

• We marched on the Capitol by the hundreds of thousands on September 12 and kept them from passing a bill for another month.

• We spent October calling, writing, and visiting our Congressmen to tell them to say no to ObamaCare and stopped them for another month.

And on Saturday we forced Pelosi to claim passing a bill with broad bi-partisan opposition was victory. It was not.

We can not afford to let up now. In addition to making your voice heard, I ask that you consider making a contribution to help fund the next wave of attack as we try to reach a million freedom loving citizens to take action in the coming weeks. Please click here if you are in a position to help us.

We fight because we know that no matter how many times the power grabbers in Washington deny it, a trillion dollar health care entitlement means health care will cost us more and will increase the deficit. And we know Washington controlled health care means poorer quality health care.

It boggles the mind how something that affects every fiber of our lives was not put to a vote of the people. How is it that a handful of politicians, each with their own agenda [not being for the people, but for themselves], can make such a monumental decision on our lives.

Are we not protected by the Constitution and the Declaration from this kind of tyranny? Hopefully, there will be challenges against these underhanded actions by our Congress. This is all part of a strategy to destroy freedom as we know it.

In light of this weekend's actions by our House of Representatives, this piece by Thomas Sowell seems appropriate, considering he wrote it before these autrocious actions by the House:


The ‘Costs’ of Medical Care, Part IV
By Thomas Sowell, November 6, 2009

What is so wrong with the current medical system in the United States that we are being urged to rush headlong into a new government system that we are not even supposed to understand, because this legislation is to be rushed through Congress before even the Senators and Representatives have a chance to read it?

Among the things that people complain about under the present medical care system are the costs, insurance company bureaucrats' denials of reimbursements for some treatments and the free loaders at hospital emergency rooms whose costs have to be paid by others.

Will a government-run medical system make these things better or worse? This very basic question seldom seems to get asked, much less answered.

If the government has some magic way of reducing costs — rather than shifting them around, including shifting them to the next generation — they have certainly not revealed that secret. The actual track record of government when it comes to costs — of anything — is more alarming than reassuring.

What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?

Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need.

However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned, it would not be "social justice" to allow some people to get medical care that others are denied, just because some people "happen to have money."

But very few people just "happen to have money." Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an elite-controlled world, which they call "social justice" or other politically attractive phrases.

The "uninsured" are another big talking point for government medical insurance. But the incomes of many of the uninsured indicate that many — if not most — of them choose to be uninsured. Poor people can get insurance through Medicaid.

Free loading at emergency rooms — mandated by government — makes being uninsured a viable option.

Within living memory, most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses.

This is not ideal for everybody or every situation. But if we are ready to rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long.

Ironically, it is politicians who have already made medical insurance so expensive that many people refuse to buy it. Insurance is designed to cover risk. But politicians have mandated that insurance cover things that are not risks and that neither the buyers nor the sellers of insurance want covered.

In various states, medical insurance must cover the costs of fertility treatments, annual checkups and other things that have nothing to do with risks. What many people most want is to be insured against the risk of having their life's savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness.

But you cannot get insurance just for catastrophic illnesses when politicians keep piling on mandates that drive up the cost of the insurance. These are usually state mandates but the federal government is already promising more mandates on insurance companies — which means still higher costs and higher premiums.

All this makes a farce of the notion of a "public option" that will simply provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest. What politicians can and will do is continue to drive up the cost of private insurance until it is no longer viable. A "public option" is simply a path toward a "single payer" system, a euphemism for a government monopoly.

Read more of Thomas Sowell here

THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE LEFT-WING PLUTOCRACY

Conservatives live with hypocrisy on a daily basis. Take, for example, the constant disgusting verbal assaults on President Bush, while any opposition to Obama is called racist.

Another example is the quiet, peaceful, and respectful queries made by tens of thousands of citizens to their elected officials on the government take-over of our health care, while several other citizens were arrested for their out-of-control assault of Sen. Lieberman in favor of government run health care.

An excellent analysis of this anomaly in PajamasMedia:


The Discreet Charm of the Left-wing Plutocracy
by Victor Davis Hanson, November 3, 2009

Gorism

The news of this week made mention of Al Gore as our soon-to-be, first carbon billionaire. Accounts included both his earlier and contemporary angry denials that he was greedy, or had used his vast network of government contacts to influence public loans, contracts, and regulations, in parlaying a 2001 net worth of $2 million apparently into a green empire of several hundred million.

In Gore’s telling, he was worried only about the planet, put meager investments into promising green companies, and then, given divine intervention, found himself worth perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars.

Still, I’m not so interested in how Gore made his fortune, or even the ethics involved of barnstorming the planet in a first wave of scare tactics, then following up with a second wave of financial reaping from what his fear mongering had sown—but rather instead the divide between the world he advocates and the life he lives. After all, with cap-and-trade, our energy is going to go a tad higher—the rich oblivious to the cost, the poor to be recipients of government subsidized help.

To distill Gorism is to live in a 1,000 sq. ft. solar house, bike to work, and take the train on long distances; but to promote Gorism, one lives in a mansion, jets on private planes, and is chauffeured from airport to conference center—a rather heavy carbon footprint indeed. I mention that because this week he has insisted that he only invested in what he believes in and is thus not a hypocrite—sort of like a 1990s Fannie or Freddie director saying he is only taking mega-bonuses because he believes in public support for housing.

A Charming disconnect

What has the liberal leadership become? It garners more Wall Street money than the Republicans. The high-income brackets favored Obama. The shriller the populist or nihilist—think everyone from Arianna Huffington to Michael Moore to Noam Chomsky to Gore Vidal—the nicer the home. Think of the vast diversity of such celebrity hypocrisy: John Edward’s “two nations” is defined by his own vast estate—and those outside it. Michael Moore profits in the millions from, of course, damning profit-driven capitalism.

A Sean Penn or Oliver Stone praises the egalitarianism of Latin American thugs whose socialist utopias would jail both in short order if they ever moved in pursuance of their egalitarian rhetoric. The Obama populist team hires Wall Street insiders to bail out friends, whose firms they will shortly join when out of office.

Rev. Wright is back in the news. In Animal Farm, pigs-on-two-legs fashion he is sermonizing on the joys of socialism as he is ensconced in a three-story, 10,000 sq. ft. mansion, paid for by his relatively modest flock in thanks to his virulent race-baiting (the real story of his Fox-news-aired clips was not his racism or anti-Americanism, but the standing ovations he received from his congregation for his unadulterated hate.). A Nancy Pelosi shouts slogans from the barricades, while her husband subsidizes her aristocratic liberalism through a network of arcane deal-making. Chris Dodd worries about the roguery of credit card companies while he finagles an Irish getaway “cottage” through influence peddling. The list could go on.

More than hypocrisy

But everyone is a hypocrite, you object? Again, the mystery is not liberal hypocrisy—as I have written, after all, pompadour-haired, leisure-suited evangelical preachers are regularly caught in flagrante delicto or up-from-the-bootstraps corporate farmers garner vast federal ag. subsidies—but rather the apparent unconcern that revolutionary populism and the desire for great wealth and the elitism it bestows don’t mix.

What are we to make of the George Soroses and Warren Buffetts and the club of the mega wealthy preferring the populist rhetoric of Barack Obama? Why did a “redistributive change”, “spread the wealth” Barack Obama move into a million-dollar mansion, or a “truth to power” Valerie Jarrett make out like a bandit from questionable insider Chicago real estate deals, or Rahm Emanuel cash grab as a director of a scandal-plagued Freddie Mac, or raise-our-taxes Timothy Geithner in the most tawdry fashion avoid taxes? In short, why the liberal fascination with money and privilege—and populism?

Pick an exegesis

Choice One: There must be some syndrome at work of psychological compensation. For many who seek out the high life, but who are cognizant that the big house, the good vacations, the good schools, the nice night life and socializing, are beyond the reach of most, some sort of genuine guilt ensues. One way of squaring that circle is to go hard left in the abstract as a form of psychological penance that costs little in the concrete—the bloodthirsty medieval knight stopping in at the abbey to confess before the gore of battle.

The more Sean Penn praises Castro, the more the perks of Malibu become to his mind OK. Boat around New Orleans after Katrina and you can cruise around the Pacific Coast Highway with a good conscience. Being rich and left-wing is like a 16th-century sinner buying an indulgence through purchasing a few blocks for the dome at St. Peter’s. Moneyed liberalism allows one to feel good at very little personal expense—surely not having one’s child bussed to an inner-city school, or giving up your legacy slot at Princeton for someone more diverse, or waiting at the LA emergency room with a sick child.

Choice Two: With money also comes a sort of refinement by the very fact that hoi polloi are usually kept at a distance—the Kennedys discussing health care from their beach compound, John Kerry from one of his numerous homes lambasting greed, Governor Corzine, awash in $400 million of Goldman-Sachs bonus money, deploring rightist obstructionism to his anti-poverty plans. In other words, the rich like their alliances with the distant objects of their affection, as long as the many remain suitably distant.

There are never consequences for crazy theoretical positions; money and status ensure insulation from high crime, welfare dependency, or the pernicious culture of the underclass. And to write as I do here is to be envious, impractical, irrelevant, blind, etc. to equally bad rich conservatives (who at least admit to being champions of the capitalism that enriched them and to want others to do as well as have they).

The key I think here is an ill-at-ease feeling, not with the poor, or even with the middle class, but with the upper-middle class, or anyone in general that strives to be rich. This is the image of the town-hall money-grubbers, without kids in prep schools, without proper degrees, the ancient polypragmones of Aristophanes’ comedies who hustle to make a drachma through tanning, pottery, and shipping. Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palin is like Petronius’s freedmen who stoop to bite and pick up sesterces in the dung, and are soiled by the efforts at acquisition.

Obamamism’s targets are wannabees, who lack the proper sophistication that real wealth ensures. Again, note the hatred of Sarah Palin and her followers: how dare this upstart sell her memoirs, this winking, you-betcha tart whom we’d never let in a Georgetown party. For many, liberalism, in contrast, is the proper social accoutrement for big money, a tasteful indulgence like driving a XK-150 Jaguar rather than an Escalade, cruising in a Gar wood boat, or having hardwood, machine-worn hickory floors in the kitchen instead of linoleum. Yes, snobbery is part of high liberalism. It is a fashion marker that says: “I want high taxes, because for me they are as superfluous as white lace and crystal.”

Choice Three: There is some real big money in leftwing capitalism. Look at Gore again, and his outrage when asked about the propriety of it all (his argument boils down to: ‘How dare you to insinuate that me, Al Gore, savior of your planet, would ever be interested in making a hundred million off it!), or Charles Rangel’s furor at questions about his corruption, or the Kennedy shock that anyone would ask how the former bootlegging fortune out-trusted ninety years of inheritance laws to reach distant offspring intact.

We don’t associate hardball, tawdry shenanigans with the creation of the Buffett, or Turner or Gates fortune. Even modest fortunes like that of democratister Terry McAuliffe do not receive careful scrutiny when we understand their creators are “with the people” and for whom money-making was always incidental, a brief pause between public service.

Franklin Rains essentially looted what he could get from Freddie Mac, but as a man of the people such despicable compensation was, well, a mere distraction from populism. In other words, liberalism is smart business practice in the world of big money, an enhancement of right-wing capitalist me-first money-making. The wealthier the Wall Street wheeler-dealer, the more likely, in Robert Rubin fashion, one was to embrace Clinton and Obama. Hundred-million-dollar liberalism not only legitimizes and shields great wealth, but says, “Oh, by the way, for a few years I dabbled as one of those lucre-chasing capitalists and found what they do quite easy, actually.”

So what?

A couple of final thoughts. We are a long way from Harry Truman’s fair deal Democratic party, like it or not. The theme seems to be that high taxes hardly hamper liberal elites but are necessary to fund the entitlements for the poor and lower middle classes, who in turn promise political support for those for whom money has become of less interest. Not all of this is new: think of the noblesse oblige of FDR or JFK. But rarely has the quest for the good life so permeated the ranks of liberal elites and been so juxtaposed to the rhetoric of fairness and egalitarianism.

Government—the mother’s milk of the poor and wealthy

The push-back to all this is not Republican, but a populist distrust of elites and the cozy government they craft. Americans by and large not only resent higher taxes, but feel that the additional revenue makes things worse not better, by either politicizing public service or corrupting the nature of the recipient. The rich liberal has others go to the DMV for him. The lower middle class gets a job at the DMV. But the middle class waits in line for hours for service from the SEIU clerk behind the window, who can’t be fired as a loyal constituent of big government. Sorry about the stereotyping of hard-working public employees (who more than anyone deplore the corruption of their workplace), but you get the picture.