Category Archives: Fox news

Shirley Sherrod story, Rest of story, Media coverage, Pigford v Glickman, Obama, Citizen Wells open thread, August 27, 2010

Shirley Sherrod story, Rest of story, Media coverage, Pigford v Glickman, Obama

Has anyone out there heard Fox or any other major media player cover the complete Shirley Sherrod story and her connection to the controversy in the Pigford v Glickman payouts to black farmers? This story has been hovering in my mind for several weeks.

On February 23, 2010 Drill Down reported the following.

“Last Thursday, February 18th, 2010; the United States Department of Agriculture agreed to pay “Black Farmers” an additional 1.25 billion dollars to settle a previously “settled” class action discrimination suit.”

“Accordingly, in the 2008 “Farms Bill” House version known as “H.R.2419 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008” section “4012. DETERMINATION ON MERITS OF PIGFORD CLAIMS,” inserted 100 million dollars for money to be paid for those claimants denied due to untimely filing. A corresponding provision was inserted into the Senate version of the Bill by then Senator Barack Obama. In a public statement, NBFA President John Boyd Jr. explained that it would take “billions” to settle the claims, but that “he had to accept” the 100 million to keep the suit alive.

Last Thursday, Obama, Holder, and the USDA, proved Boyd correct by agreeing to pay an additional 1.15 billion dollars to honor the “late” filers under the original settlement. There are now more than 70,000 claims of discrimination pending adjudication. Yes, that’s 70,000 IN ADDITION TO the original 22,000 claims; making the total number of claims almost 100,000. Or, roughly 4 times more than the total number of black farms in existence at the time of the alleged discrimination. The allocated funds which now exceed 2 billion dollars, will clearly be insufficient to honor all of the pending claims.”

Read more:

http://drilldown.blogtownhall.com/2010/02/23/back_door_reparations___pigford_ii_-_usda_settlement.thtml

American Thinker reported the following on July 21, 2010.

“Shirley Sherrod’s quick dismissal from the Obama administration may have had less to do with her comments on race before the NAACP than her long involvement in the aptly named Pigford case, a class action against the US government on behalf of black farmers alleging that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had discriminated against black farmers during the period from 1983 through 1997.”

“So where does Sherrod come into this picture?  In a special to the Washington Examiner, Tom Blumer explains  that Sherrod and the group she formed along with family members and others, New Communities. Inc. received the largest single settlement under Pigford.
 … New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).
What makes this even more interesting to me is that Charles appears to be Charles Sherrod, who was a big player in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the early 1960s.  The SNCC was the political womb that nurtured the Black Power movement and the Black Panthers before it faded away.
Blumer has some questions about this settlement and about Sherrod’s rapid departure from the USDA
•Was Ms. Sherrod’s USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization’s settlement?
•How much “debt forgiveness” is involved in USDA’s settlement with New Communities?
•Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in “pain and suffering” payments — amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)?
•Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?
Here are a few bigger-picture questions:
•Did Shirley Sherrod resign so quickly because the circumstances of her hiring and the lawsuit settlement with her organization that preceded it might expose some unpleasant truths about her possible and possibly sanctioned conflicts of interest?
•Is USDA worried about the exposure of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in its handling of Pigford?
•Did USDA also dispatch Sherrod hastily because her continued presence, even for another day, might have gotten in the way of settling Pigford matters quickly?”

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/forty_acres_a_mule_sherrod_sty.html

From BigGovernment.com August 26, 2010.

““After all the friendly gestures between Secretary Vilsack and Mrs. Sherrod, there are still several questions unanswered. Why is Secretary Vilsack taking responsibility for the decision when Mrs. Sherrod has maintained she was contacted by the White House? Did the White House demand Secretary Vilsack fire Mrs. Sherrod? Is she still being paid by the federal government? Has Mrs. Sherrod agreed not to file another lawsuit against Secretary Vilsack or the federal government? Was Shirley Sherrod granted an additional settlement in exchange for her silence and an agreement not to sue Vilsack again? Why is Mrs. Sherrod filing suit against Andrew Breitbart, but hugging the man who fired her?””

Read more:

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/08/26/pigford-vilsack-sherrod-press-conference-raises-serious-questions/

Is this story being covered?

Missouri voters reject Obamacare, Over 70 percent, Proposition C, Citizen Wells open thread, August 4, 2010

Missouri voters reject Obamacare, Over 70 percent, Proposition C

From Fox News Kansas City Missouri August 3, 2010.

“Missouri Voters Approve Measure to Ban Mandated Health Insurance”

“The nation is watching Missouri on Tuesday night, as voters approved a proposal that asks voters to ban federally-mandated health insurance.

Proposition C would also disallow punishments for not buying health insurance, and prohibit the government from forcing citizens and businesses to buy health insurance, which will be required under federal law beginning in 2014.

The measure won with over 70 percent of the vote with 65 percent of all precincts reporting.

It is unclear if the measure would be enforceable, as federal law typically supersedes state law under the U.S. Constitution. But supporters say that the measure would send a message to Democrats in Washington and across the nation.

“I think this is an exciting time for Missourians because we are really the first state to vote on the individual mandate, and I think what happens in Missouri tonight will command headlines around the country for the next few days if not months,” said Prop C supporter Patrick Tuohey of Missourians for Health Care Freedom.”

Read more:

http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-story-propc-measure-080310,0,2735261.story

Glenn Beck pay attention, Get better researchers, Radio show needs improving, Glenn call me

Glenn Beck pay attention, Get better researchers, Radio show needs improving

Glenn Beck is likeable. I try to like Glenn Beck. I agree with many of his positions and he does a pretty good job on his Fox show. I do not listen to his radio show that often because he and his sidekicks need to grow up. He also needs some quality researchers, not the jacklegs currently working for him. Beck, et al, really screwed up on insulting concerned Americans questioning Obama’s eligibility.

I was traveling down the highway a few minutes ago and Beck and his sidekick were discussing the Chevy Volt and making stupid, ill informed remarks again. Glenn Beck actually went on to make some intelligent well informed remarks later about energy.

I can safely say that I probably know more about energy in general and in many cases specifically than Beck. Before I continue, I am not addressing government takeover of GM or other decisions made at GM. Glenn and his buddy were making immature, ignorant remarks about the Chevy Volt. They were making light of the 40 mile range on the electric power of the vehicle. They compared it to the 100 mile range of the Nissan Leaf. Indeed, that was my first reaction before I did more research and thought about it. Here is the truth about the Chevy Volt vs the Nissan Leaf.

  • Most Americans, most days, drive under 40 miles.
  • Whenever a longer trip is needed, the gasoline generator kicks in.
  • The Volt can serve as a single car for a person or family.
  • The Nissan Leaf has a range of 100 miles period before charging. Charging takes time. Lot’s of time.
  • For most people, the Leaf must serve as a second vehicle.
  • The Volt is the best solution for phase one fossil fuel independence.
  • The Volt, covering a high percentage of days driving, will work best for most people to reduce gasoline usage.

Glenn Beck, call me. I am still waiting.

Now to give Beck credit. He spoke of the virtues of hydrogen fuel and made an intelligent comment. Off peak nuclear generation could be directed to producing hydrogen. I did not hear him say it, but wind and solar can also be used to produce hydrogen.

And Glenn Beck, the real question is why has Obama employed so many private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

Glenn Beck, call me. I am still waiting.

Blagojevich trial fixed, US Justice Department corrupt, Obama protected, Media coverage?, Citizen Wells open thread, July 28, 2010

Blagojevich trial fixed, US Justice Department corrupt, Obama protected, Media coverage?

The jury begins deliberations today, Wednesday, July 28, 2010. It is obvious to anyone paying attention that the arrest and trial of Rod Blagojevich was crafted to protect Obama. The Blagojevich attorneys are correct. The prosecution did not present a case. Is this being covered properly in the media, including Fox? If you have any evidence of media coverage, please advise.

Yesterday I presented part 6 on the Blagojevich trial, protecting Obama and US Justice Dept. corruption. What I did was not rocket science. The basis of part 6 was presenting information from the Evidentiary Proffer. A cursory examination of the the evidence there reveals that the trial was rigged.

“As noted in part 5 of this series, Tony Rezko’s name was mentioned approximately 288 times in the Evidentiary Proffer. The above numbers reveal that of the evidence presented in the Proffer, 38 pages are loaded with names and corruption activities tied to Blagojevich from 2002 to mid 2008. And yet neither Tony Rezko or Stuart Levine were called as witnesses. And just as predicted and warned about here, the focus of the trial was the selling of Obama’s senate seat.

The approximately 39 pages devoted to Blagojevich’s activities mainly from mid 2008 to his arrest reveal much about the chicanery crafted in this setup. These pages are at most a continuation of Blagojevich’s activities in the prior 6 years. They are more general in nature and in the case of the selling of the senate seat, more open to interpretation.

Compare these facts to the evidence and witnesses of the Blagojevich trial.

It is clear from the facts, from the evidence that:

Rod Blagojevich should have been arrested and indicted by 2006.

The arrest of Blagojevich was delayed until after the 2008 election to protect Obama.

The shortening of the trial was designed to protect Obama and the Democrats.

The withholding of evidence and not calling witnesses such as Tony Rezko and Stuart Levine was designed to protect Blagojevich and Obama. The theatrics playing out in court are likely to be a diversion to make it appear that the defense wanted Rezko and Levine to take the witness stand. Rezko and Levine know too much about both Blagojevich and Obama. That is why the Justice Department did not call them as witnesses. We have confirmation from this apparent scheme and other revelations that the US Justice Department is corrupt.”

Are there anymore whistleblowers in the US Justice Department? Anymore attorneys who believe in the US Constituton and rule of law?

Blagojevich trial, Justice Dept corruption, Obama eligibility, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly

Blagojevich trial, Justice Dept corruption, Obama eligibility

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.

US Justice Department corruption, Blagojevich trial, Protecting Obama, Part 1, Michelle Malkin & Sean Hannity paying attention

US Justice Department corruption, Blagojevich trial, Protecting Obama, Part 1

US Justice Department corruption

Blagojevich trial

Protecting Obama

Part 1

Like so many articles or series that I write, this series is changing as I write and develop it. I know generally and in much detail what I want to write, but one thing leads to another and I get a lot of input from great commenters on this blog and via email. Commenter TJ just posted a video as I was doing further research and beginning what was going to be part 1.

Michelle Malkin and Sean Hannity on FOX discuss the Blagojevich trial and Obama’s ties.

Malkin, who I respect very much, and Hannity do a pretty good job of analyzing facts from the Blagojevich trial and linking corruption to Obama. They touched on the Health Planning Facilities Board corruption but did not reveal Obama’s ties to that chicanery and the subsequent corrupt maneuvers by the Justice Department. I suppose that will continue to be left to me.

In the next parts I will lay out how the Blagojevich trial played out, why it should have occured many months earlier, why I believed many months ago that the Justice Dept. was corrupt and why actions leading up to and during the trial by the Justice Dept. prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are protecting Obama. This will be much easier for more people to fathom after recent revelations from J. Christian Adams and others.

Blagojevich: “but compared to even Obama, you know, I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko  than him.”

Thanks to commenter TJ.

J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Julie Fernandez, Fox News interview, US Justice Dept corruption, Voter registration not enforced, Megyn Kelly interview, Part 2

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.”

Make certain that you read the entire article!!:

http://article.nationalreview.com/420577/politicizing-the-law/hans-a-von-spakovsky

J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Fox News interview, US Justice Dept corruption, Racial bias, New Black Panther Party case, Voter registration enforcement, Megyn Kelly interview, Part 1

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.

Part 1

Bartle Bull interview, Obama a hustler, Megyn Kelly, Fox News, I didn’t like Obama from the beginning

Bartle Bull interview, Obama a hustler, Megyn Kelly, Fox News

Bartle Bull, a lifelong Democrat and civil rights activist, was interviewwed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News today, July 1, 2010. Mr. Bull reacted to J Christian Adams resignation and statements about the US Justice Dept. dropping the lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. Bartle Bull was also a witness to the voter intimidation by the Black Panthers in 2008. Mr. Bull had this to say about Obama.

“I didn’t like Obama from the beginning,
I thought he was a hustler
and I think he still is.”

Bartle James interview

J Christian Adams resignation, US Justice Dept. corrupt?, Biased?, Fox News coverage, Citizen Wells open thread, July 1, 2010

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.”

From Citizen Wells yesterday

Fox News coverage yesterday

Fox News has more coverage of this story today.