America, You Asked For It!

Political News and Commentary from the Right

A Jury of His Peers?

by Gary Varvel at GOPUSA

November 24, 2009 Posted by | War on Terror | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Voter intimidation gets thumbs up…

…from President Obama’s Justice Department, as long as the intimidator intimidates those the President prefers not vote.

On November 4, 2008 two members, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) stationed themselves outside a polling place at 1221 Fairmount St, Philadelphia, PA. (See video) On January 7, 2009 (eleven days before the inauguration of President Obama), the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against these two men, NBPP, and Malik Zulu Shabazz (acting chairman of NBPP) for violating Section 11(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by engaging in and attempting coercion, threats, and intimidation of voters and those aiding voters at the polling place.

The complaint alleges Samir Shabazz “brandished a deadly weapon…pointed the weapon at individuals, menacingly tapped it [on] his other hand, or menacingly tapped it elsewhere.” He and Jackson were also accused of hurling racial threats and racial insults at both black and white voters while the polls were open as well as making “menacing and intimidating gestures, statements, and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.” Malik Zulu Shabazz and NBPP “managed, directed and endorsed the behavior, actions and statements” of their co-defendants, according to the complaint. In addition Malik Zulu Shabazz was accused of making statements “adopting and endorsing the deployment, behavior, and statements” of Samir Shabazz and Jackson following the election.

After the defendants failed to appear in court or present a defense, the court ordered the DOJ to prepare a motion for default judgment against them. On May 1, 2009, DOJ sought an extension to comply with the order. DOJ stated the extension was necessary to “craft an appropriate and equitable remedy” because it had not “had the benefit of discovery” in the case and did not anticipate “that the Defendants would make no showing whatsoever.” The court granted DOJ’s motion on May 4.  The defendants unwillingness to appear or defend themselves had cost them the case.  All that remained was for the DOJ to file the necessary motion and the court to grant it.

Instead, on May 15, DOJ filed a proposed default judgment order against Samir Shabazz and dropped its case against the other three defendants.  The court then handed down its judgment against Shabazz that prohibits him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any or to intimidate, threaten or coerce voters or those assisting voters.1  No fines, no admission of guilt, really not even a punitive act of any kind!

Some may be thinking there was no proof, no witnesses willing to testify to the acts described in the complaint.  Even if that were so, DOJ had the case in hand after the defendants’ refusal to appear to defend themselves.  But there was at least one witness.  And a very credible (even to ultra left-wingers) witness at that.   Bartle Bull, an attorney who cut his professional teeth on the civil rights movement of the 1960’s, was also working as a poll watcher on election day.  

Michelle Malkin has posted Mr. Bull’s sworn affidavit on the case here.   In it, Mr. Bull unequivocally states that he observed the two men intimidate and attempt to intimidate voters and poll workers.  The following quotes are directly from his sworn statement.

“In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation,  and in my efforts in the 1960’s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location.  Their clear purpose was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.”

“…I heard the shorter man make a statement directed towards white poll observers that ‘You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.'”

“I considered their presence to be a racially motivated effort to intimidate poll watchers aiding voters, as well as voters with whom the men did not agree.”

If these were the statements of a Republican, liberals would certainly level charges of dishonesty. But this comes from one of their own–a civil rights attorney who worked on the campaigns of such left-wing icons as Robert F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Democrats can’t write this off as a product of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

So, how did the Obama DOJ deal with such a damning condemnation by one of their own?

They buried it.

That’s correct. Mr. Bull’s affidavit was dated April 7, 2009–almost three months after the President’s inauguration. But the court never saw it. The affidavit was never filed!

According to this Washington Times exclusive, a DOJ spokesman in the supposedly “most transparent administration in history” refused to reveal the source of the pressure that forced career DOJ lawyers to drop the case they’d pursued since January. The Times’ sources for the article insisted on anonymity “because of fear of retribution.”

It appears Obama’s DOJ is not only protecting thugs who intimidate the President’s political enemies, but also creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation within the Department. The same career attorneys whose advice Eric Holder promised he would listen to in his confirmation hearings now fear reprisals if they publicly disagree with their boss.

Obama’s promised change has arrived.  After this, we can count on a lot more left-wing security (that’s how Shabazz and Jackson described their role in Philadelphia–security) at polling places on election day.   This outrage is an open invitation for the NBPP and any other radical left-wing group to place intimidators at the doors to harass voters and poll-watchers.

During the campaign Obama mentioned his desire for a civilian security force.  Perhaps the NBPP will be his recruiting ground.

May 31, 2009 Posted by | Obama | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is this the change you wanted?

Well it looks like the President-elect is choosing Eric Holder as his nominee for Attorney General of the United States. According to,

A Democratic official says President-elect Barack Obama plans to name his picks for U.N. ambassador, attorney general and homeland security secretary at a news conference Monday.

So…let’s take a look at the change this will bring.

Holder served as deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration and is now a partner at the Washington law firm, Covington and Burling. This Newsweek article claims Holder was hesitant to accept the post due to concerns the vetting process was sure to bring up questions of his role in Clinton’s presidential pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich who fled the United States for evading approximately $48 million in taxes and other crimes. Indeed, Holder was quoted in this article by The Swamp when asked by the Legal Times if he would accept the AG post.

“Yesterday, though, Holder was even more frank when asked by Legal Times if he would, indeed, accept the AG spot: “That ain’t gonna happen,” he said.

Perhaps at the time he actually believed Obama’s mantra of change and now realizes it was all just campaign propaganda. But it gets better!

This article on Firedoglake describes Holder’s role working for Chiquita International–you know, bananas. It appears the company’s employees were attempting to organize in Columbia so Chiquita hired a paramilitary organization to quell dissent in an effort to keep their costs down! From the article:

Chiquita funded terror to kill labor organizers in order to keep down labor costs. A very rational decision. It sends an interesting message to labor in the US to hire a man who’s worked for a corporation like that to be Attorney General.

Is this the kind of man we want running our Justice Department? How can organized labor–which unequivocally supports the Democratic Party–approve of this appointment?

Remember the furor that arose from liberals when Bush nominated John Ashcroft for AG? Just in case you don’t, here’s a quote from a position paper of the National Association of Social Workers on his nomination.

NASW opposes the confirmation of John D. Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. John Ashcroft has a record of being insensitive towards the civil rights of minorities, women, and gays and lesbians. His extremist views towards civil rights and reproductive rights for women and minorities convey his inability to be an attorney general that will represent fair justice for all of Americans. While serving as an U.S. Senator from Missouri for the past six years, Ashcroft has demonstrated that he will use his position to promote his narrow extreme right wing vision of justice.

That translates to: John Ashcroft is a Christian who votes according to his faith and that disqualifies him from serving as AG.

Which would make a worse AG? John Ashcroft who votes according to his conscience and Christian faith? Or, Eric Holder who defends companies who hire terrorists to kill and intimidate workers in an effort to control costs?

Now, if that isn’t bad enough let’s couple it with Holder’s position on the 2nd Amendment–you know, that pesky one that follows freedom of speech, religion, the press so that the American people are guaranteed the capacity to protect those freedoms. From this post on The Volokh Conspiracy by David Kopel,

Earlier this year, Eric Holder–along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice–co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief was filed in support of DC’s ban on all handguns, and ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home.

As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday).

The brief and his aversion to 2nd Amendment rights are troublesome enough, but when coupled with Holder’s willingness to defend those who hire terrorists to trample the civil rights of people trying to improve their lives and earn a living we can see a clearcut threat to our constitutionally guaranteed right to defend our own.

Think this sounds paranoid? Let’s look at another quote gleaned from this article. Do you remember the Elian Gonzalez travesty during the Clinton administration? The little Cuban boy whose mother died escaping Cuba who was captured in a paramilitary raid on his family member’s home in Florida. Here’s the quote from the Kopel article:

Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old’s home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez “was not taken at the point of a gun” and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted “very sensitively.”


Still think Holder’s going to protect and defend your rights? Is this the change America was looking for? I think not.

December 1, 2008 Posted by | Obama | , , | Leave a comment