Before I proceed with Part 2 of US Justice Department corruption, how it affects the Blagojevich trial and yes, Obama eligibility, I want to give two Fox News personalities a chance to apologize and do their job.
First of all, Lou Dobbs, on CNN of all places, issued the most direct challenge to Obama about his birth certificate. Lou deserves our priase and respect.
Sean Hannity, on his radio show, also questioned Obama on not providing a birth certificate.
Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly have not only not covered Obama’s lack of eligibility, they have insulted well informed, concerned Americans who have asked questions. Why won’t they ask the simple core question?
Why has Obama employed a legion of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?
Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, apologize to the American people, the people who made you a success, and do your job. It is not too late.
J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Julie Fernandez
J Christian Adams, a former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the US Justice Department, testified Tuesday, July 6, 2010, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Adams is interviewed afterwards on FOX News by Megyn Kelly.
Adams alleges that the Justice Dept ignores voter fraud and states that a mandate came from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez.
Part 2
Julie Fernandez Deputy Assistant Attorney General
From the National Review January 12, 2010.
“Politicizing the Law”
“Eric Holder’s Justice Department has exiled Christopher Coates to South Carolina.
Coates, you may recall, is a career attorney at Justice, the chief of the Civil Rights Division’s (CRD) Voting Section. More to the point, Coates recommended that the CRD file a lawsuit for voter intimidation against the New Black Panther party and several of its members, who were in paramilitary uniforms (one of them waving a nightstick) threatening elderly white voters at a polling station in Philadelphia during last year’s elections.
Political appointees at the Justice Department overrode Coates’s recommendation. They ordered him to dismiss the lawsuit against all but one of the defendants, even though they were in default because they did not defend themselves. The eventual injunction against the defendant with the weapon was laughably weak.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation of the unexplained dismissal. It has subpoenaed Coates, but Justice has ordered Coates not to appear before the panel. Indeed, the partisan Democrats running the Civil Rights Division have barred Coates and another career lawyer, Christian Adams, from providing any assistance to the commission or the Republican congressmen investigating the matter. What are they so afraid will be revealed?”
“Washington today is infested with advocacy groups run by radicals who view the law — particularly federal civil-rights statutes like the Voting Rights Act — as a weapon to be used to further ideological goals, cement political control, and demonize political opponents. By contrast, fair-minded liberals and conservatives — at least those with whom I worked in the Civil Rights Division during the Bush administration — saw their duty as one of enforcing the law in a neutral manner within the narrow and objective strictures of federal statutes and case law. They did not assume the federal government had a monopoly on civil-rights virtue. They insisted that career attorneys recognize the proper role of the judiciary in what they asked courts to do. They recognized the need for restraint in certain investigatory activity lest the threat of federal power produce results that the law would not command.
Despite this conscious, principled adherence to “blind justice” and the constitutional role of the judiciary, some in the Bush Department of Justice found themselves accused of “politicization” when they tried to hire lawyers who would respect and carry out these principles. The radical Left simply could not tolerate a system in which the liberal ideologues who already predominated the career ranks in the CRD were not replicated in all hiring decisions.
The recent personnel action against Coates exposes the injustice (and hypocrisy) of the Left’s demagoguery. For all intents and purposes, the transfer was a demotion. A demotion for doing the right thing.”
“I would trace it to his mistake of enforcing civil-rights laws even-handedly. In 2003, while I was still at the CRD, we received complaints that black officials in Noxubee County, Miss., were discriminating against white voters. Coates went down and investigated. He found blatant racial discrimination occurring in the polls. The discrimination was organized, led, and orchestrated by the black head of the local Democratic party’s executive committee, a two-time felon. A federal district court found “improper, and in some instances fraudulent conduct . . . for the purpose of diluting white voting strength.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, when it upheld the judgment against the defendants, found there was intentional discrimination against white voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Coates’s audacity, first in investigating this case and then in recommending that a lawsuit be filed, made him many enemies. Previously, he had spent his entire career filing lawsuits on behalf of minority voters who had suffered discrimination. But in Noxubee, the white voters being discriminated against were the minority, representing only about 30 percent of voters. Their race made no difference to Coates, but based on what I observed, it made a big difference to ultra-liberal lawyers inside and outside the Justice Department.
When Coates first went to Noxubee to investigate the complaints, a number of the Voting Section’s career lawyers expressed disgust that we would bother to protect white voters. Coates was astonished by the blatantly illegal behavior he saw going on in the polls, but many of his colleagues wanted to ignore it. Several career lawyers in the section flatly refused to work on the case.”
“That brings us to the real bone of contention, the final reason Coates has been transferred: the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther party. NBPP members were hurling racial epithets and threatening voters at a polling place in Philadelphia. It was among the most blatant cases of voter intimidation the CRD had seen in decades. Adams was one of three lawyers assigned to the case by Coates, no doubt because, unlike the other career lawyers in the Voting Section, Adams would not refuse to sue non-white perpetrators of voter intimidation. The other two lawyers on the New Black Panther party case were Robert Popper and Spencer Fisher, both highly dedicated voting-rights attorneys as well.”
“One former Voting Section career lawyer who had left the Justice Department to go to work for the NAACP, Kristen Clarke, admitted to the Washington Times that she talked to the new political leadership after Obama was inaugurated, berating them for not dismissing the case. Sources at Justice tell me Clarke made an identical pitch to her former colleagues in the Voting Section once Obama and Eric Holder came to power.
The entreaties proved productive. According to the Washington Times, Loretta King, whom Obama named the acting assistant attorney general of the CRD, ordered Coates to dismiss the case against three of the defendants despite their default. King apparently received approval from Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli to do so. Who else Perrelli spoke with in the Justice Department and the White House is the subject of continued stonewalling in response to the subpoenas served on Justice by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission
Meanwhile, the forced dismissal of the New Black Panther case turned out to be just the beginning of the misery heaped on Coates. According to multiple sources at Justice, King and the political appointees who came in soon after Obama’s inauguration — particularly Julie Fernandez, an ideological firebrand and former lawyer for the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights — put severe restrictions on Coates almost as soon as they arrived and began micromanaging all of his work. The new political apparatchiks stripped Coates of virtually all discretionary authority, delegated responsibility for most decisions to more “results-oriented” underlings in the Voting Section, and rendered him a virtual figurehead.”
“Like Coates, Adams and the entire New Black Panther party trial team are consummate professionals who seek to enforce the laws without political or ideological considerations. Unfortunately, such lawyers are a rarity within the Civil Rights Division, which is without doubt one of the most insidiously partisan places I have ever worked, inside or outside of government.
Over the past year, all hiring within the CRD has been done on a purely partisan, ideological basis. Doubtless that will continue to happen over the next three years.”
“Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department.”
J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Fox News interview
J Christian Adams testimony, a former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the US Justice Department, testified Tuesday, July 6, 2010, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Adams has leveled a new charge against the Justice Department of not enforcing voter registration. Adams is interviewed afterwards on FOX News by Megyn Kelly.
US Justice Department corruption, Voter intimidation, New Black Panther case dismissal
I am watching the Rod Blagojevich trial unfold. I have been monitoring this since before the Tony Rezko trial ended. There were many disturbing signs well before the Blagojevich trial began. Many of us questioned Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department. Now we have J. Christian Adams and Bartle Bull speaking out, lending credence to our concerns. I have more thoughts on the Blagojevich trial that I will commit to words soon.
J Christian Adams resignation, US Justice Dept. corrupt?, Biased?, Fox News coverage
J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.
“The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”
Obama and US Justice Dept corruption, Obama agenda, Racial bias, New Black Panther Party case dismissed
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”…2001 Barack Obama interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ
J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.
“On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter -intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”
“Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.
“The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ’s skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the “facts and law” did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let’s all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.
Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal – Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum – did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation.”
““The communities that we serve must see that the federal government is really committed to the impartial and aggressive enforcement of our nation’s laws, and these communities must know that we will do all that we can to enforce the law that protect our civil rights with the same vigor that we enforce the laws that protect our public safety.”
“Despite those comments, Holder dismissed default judgments that the Bush Justice Department had filed against Malik Shabazz and Jerry Jackson in January 2009.
The suit alleged that Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP), “managed, directed and endorsed” the incident, in which Jackson and a third defendant, Samir Shabazz, wore NBPP uniforms that included “black berets combat boots, bloused battle dress pants, rank insignia, (NBPP) insignia, and black jackets.”
Samir Shabazz also was accused by the Bush DOJ of having “brandished a deadly weapon,” described as a nightstick, and “pointed it at individuals” while the polls were open for voting in the presidential election.
Jackson accompanied Samir Shabazz throughout that activity, and both “made statements containing racial threats and racial insults” and made “menacing and intimidating gestures statements and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.”
When the defendants did not respond to the complaint from the federal government, the Bush DOJ won default judgments against Jackson and Malik Shabazz, but Holder’s DOJ chose to dismiss them in May 2009.”
“Holder also assured ADC members attending the convention that hate crimes cases would be a priority of the Obama administration, and that it was working hard on a crime against Muslims in Florida.”
““Already, we have several investigations open under the new law, and I want you all to know that we are currently working with local law enforcement to investigate the recent pipe bomb attack on a Florida mosque.”
A pipe bomb exploded during evening prayers at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida on May 10. No one was injured inside the Jacksonville mosque, but police and the FBI are investigating it as a possible hate crime.
“This case is a top concern for the FBI,” Holder said.”
Obama amnesty plan, Republican senators letter, Administration Plan B
From Fox News June 23, 2010
“GOP Lawmakers Warn of Administration Plan to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants”
“Eight Republican senators and an independent group that supports tighter limits on immigration are warning that the Obama administration is drafting a plan to “unilaterally” issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants as it struggles to win support in Congress for an overhaul of immigration laws.
The senators who wrote the White House on Monday say they are concerned that the administration is readying a “Plan B” in case a comprehensive reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress.
“It seems more real than just bullying (Republicans) into a bill — that it’s a plan that they can actually put forward … circumventing Congress,” an aide told FoxNews.com on Wednesday.
In their letter, the senators — Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; David Vitter, R-La.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; Saxby Chambliss, Ga.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Thad Cochran, R-Miss. — urge the president to “abandon” what they say is a move to “unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States.”
“Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books,” they wrote.
Deferred action and parole, which give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status, are normally granted on a case-by-case basis. But the aide said the lawmakers have learned from “sources” that the administration is considering flexing its authority to grant the status on a mass basis.
Numbers USA, an organization that presses for lower immigration levels along with humanitarian treatment of illegal immigrants, has started a petition to the president expressing “outrage” at the alleged plan.
Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations with Numbers USA, said she’s been hearing for weeks from “sources close to the Democratic leadership” in both chambers that administration officials are discussing whether the Department of Homeland Security could direct staff to grant “amnesty” for all illegal immigrants in the country.
“They’re trying to figure out ways around a vote,” she said.”
I received the following in an email a few minutes ago with a request to “PLEASE email, fax, call and otherwise reach out to your House member to vote NO on this legislation.”
“DISCLOSE ACT (HR 5175) is set for vote FRIDAY AM!!!”
The DISCLOSE Act
June 16, 2010
On the Citizens United decision: “This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom. Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American and it will amplify the voice of average citizens who want their voices heard.”
– Wayne LaPierre, National Rifle Association, January 21, 2010
“The proposals in the ‘DISCLOSE Act’ (Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections) amount to nothing more than political posturing…This bill would create another bureaucratic layer of political speech regulation, which would punish small business owners and grassroots groups who lack the resources to comply with such onerous provisions.”
– Bradley Smith, Center for Competitive Politics Chairman and Former FEC Commissioner, 2000-2005
On April 29, 2010, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year. Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United.
The DISCLOSE Act was marked up on Thursday, May 20, 2010, and may come to the floor later this week after rumors that the Democrats have reached an agreement with certain key groups. This is not meant to be an extensive analysis – which will be provided in the Legislative Bulletin once the bill comes to the floor – but rather to highlight some of the most egregious provisions of the bill.
Partisan ploy to get Democrats elected to Congress. The bill, “coincidentally” sponsored by the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in charge of electing Democrats to Congress, re-writes campaign finance laws in favor of Democrats right before elections. It was crafted behind closed doors with no input from Republican members of the House Administration Committee. The bill was designed by Democrats to silence their political opponents.
Creates a special, narrow carve-out for specific organizations intended to sway votes toward passage of the bill. The National Rifle Association (NRA), the Humane Society, and possibly a very small number of other groups, are reportedly covered in a last minute deal that creates an exemption from the financial disclosure requirements in the bill. This carve out does nothing to protect the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who want to engage in the political process but will instead be deterred by this bill. As stated in a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning, “Creating a special exception for the NRA, and thereby assuring the Democrats ‘good grades’ on Second Amendment rights, eases the way for the bill to be passed. A failing grade on First Amendment rights is somebody else’s problem.” The exemption is intended to make it easier for a bad bill to get the votes it needs to pass.
Favors unions over corporations. Current law already bans foreign nationals from contributing to elections. See the RSC Policy Paper on Citizens United for more details. DISCLOSE makes current law much more restrictive and bans independent expenditures on activity by American corporations with 20% or more foreign ownership. However, similar restrictions are not included for unions with foreign members or non-citizen members. As eight former Federal Election Commissioners stated in a recent Wall Street Journal article, “… Disclose does not ban foreign speech but speech by American citizen shareholders of U.S. companies that have some element of foreign ownership, even when those foreigners have no control over the decisions made by the Americans who run the company.” Additionally, the new threshold for reporting ($600 in donations for independent expenditures) will have little effect on unions whose members’ annual dues average much lower than $600. This would preclude unions from having to report. The bill also prohibits independent expenditures or disbursing funds for electioneering communications by anyone with a government contract greater than $7 million. (Originally, the threshold was $50,000, which was changed in mark-up.) This does not apply to unions in collective bargaining agreements with the government.
Threatens organizations with lawsuits for non-compliance. The bill becomes effective 30 days after enactment, giving the Federal Election Commission no time to craft regulations relating to the implementation of the bill, which will certainly be complicated, and not to mention expensive, to execute. Organizations would have to operate without any guidance from the FEC and risk possible lawsuits.
Onerous disclosure and reporting requirements will deter citizen engagement. The bill includes requirements that every incorporated entity engaged in independent campaign activity must list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The bill also requires CEOs of organizations to appear in the ads, and state their name and their organization two times. Additionally, the top five funders of the organization must be listed in the ad (and top two for radio), and if there is a top “significant” funder, he or she must identify himself or herself, his or her title, and state the name of the organization three times in the ad. These tedious and onerous requirements will have the effect of deterring organizations from getting involved in elections (and potentially take up most of the ad time).
Citizens United was a triumph in defense of the First Amendment right to free speech and a reaffirmation of the rights of businesses, unions, and citizens’ associations to engage in political communications. The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite, and the business community knows it. This bill is an attack on the ability of non-party organizations to engage in the political realm during an election year.
The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia has notified me today by letter dated June 15, 2010 that there will not be any oral argument on the Kerchner appeal to that Court. The case will be submitted on the briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence is therefore not required.
The Court also informed me that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.
The court can call for oral argument when it has questions. As we know, the Federal District Court granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual and conflicting allegiances if he was born in the U.S. or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court or to the Court of Appeals contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court. Hence, the Court might not have any questions and so it did not see any need for oral argument.
Of course, it is our hope that the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, we will then be filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word in any event.
Tim Adams, Hawaii elections clerk, Will Answer Questions on Record
From Phil at The Right Side of Life June 13, 2010.
“HI Elections Clerk Would Answer Questions on Record; LTC Lakin Court Martial Reactions”
““The things I’ve said, I don’t mind testifying in court,” Tim Adams, the senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in the 2008 campaign, told WND in an exclusive interview.
“I was working there, and this is what it was. I’m not a lawyer, just a civil servant. I know what I know. I know what I was told by the hospitals and by my supervisors.”
A reminder: Mr. Adams has never claimed to have first-hand knowledge, to date, of Mr. Obama’s vital records; this is why specific questions being answered by Mr. Adams is so important (more on this in a moment).
Of course, just because someone goes on record (say, via an affidavit) with certain claims doesn’t mean much unless whatever question is at hand (in this case, the lack of birth records) has its day in Court. Nevertheless, the fact that someone who was directly associated with HI elections is a major step forward in this saga — certainly nobody else has come forward to disagree with the Department of Health’s official statement.
As I brought up at the top of my last posting, I, too, have a number of very specific questions that I’ve asked Mr. Adams. I did not ask him about anything except his dealings when he was under contract with HI elections. After all, in my view, his opinion of the Constitution is worth no more or less than yours or mine — and that’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. We’re talking about the existence — or the lack thereof — of birth records; constitutional questions would naturally, by extension, be answered from that point forward (once again, with the potential exception of the fact of Mr. Obama’s British citizenship at birth).
All of this brings up an excellent question. Since we already have the DoH Director on record with her view that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen (noting, of course, that she is only an authority over public health records), what if we get Mr. Adams’ statements on record — informally via email and/or formally via affidavit — that he says that Mr. Obama does not have a birth certificate and such a statement can be substantiated?”
Citizen WElls 